p.1 #3 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape
I'd consider the 16-35 the more "usable" lens: you can use filters easily, has VR, and no bulbous front to take care of. Also somewhat cheaper. If money isn't an issue, the 14-24 and the expensive adapter options.
p.1 #4 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape
Since you only asked for $0.02 worth here's mine, without knowing too much specifics regarding your preferences or priorities
14-24 if you want
top sharpness
need wider than 16mm
want lower distortion
16-35 if you want
save some $$$
use filters
VR is more useful to you than f2.8
less weight and bulk
the 24-35mm range matters more to you than the 14-16mm range.
For my priorities, I would pick 16-35. Disclaimer, I've never used either, just presenting my $0.02 based on many hours of thinking about replacing my 17-35. In the end I'm very happy with the 17-35 for what I shoot and cannot justify owning two UW zooms.
p.1 #5 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape
I own the 16-35 mm it's a great lens which you can easily use filters with without breaking the bank buying them. I've never used the 14-24 but I hear great things about it. I was debating on these two as well I found a much better deal on the 16-35 which is why I bought it instead.
A lot of the reviews I've read the 16-35 is almost as sharp as the 14-24 plus you get the vr for handheld shooting even though I'm sure majority of your shots will probably wit a tripod.
hahaha, I was about to post a few links from the SEARCH button when I noticed he asked the same exact question a little while ago. You beat me to the punch.
p.1 #10 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape
I've owned the 16-35 and I must say that it was a excellent lens. However, I sold it to get the 14-24 and I am glad that I did. It is a lot sharper lens and you can always get an adapter if you require the use of filters. VR isn't a concern because if I am shooting landscape it would be mounted on a tripod.
p.1 #11 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape
They are both great lenses, I think which one works for you is a matter of style. The 14-24 has the ultimate IQ, but it is big and heavy. If you like to linger over your composition with the camera on a tripod this would be my choice. If you like to shoot hand held then I'd go with the 16-35 for the VR. The other issue is the zoom range. 14mm is a pretty extreme FOV while the 24-35mm range is very handy IMO. Even though I loved the IQ of the 14-24 I eventually sold it because I just didn't use the ultra-wide end enough.
p.1 #12 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape
I've used a partner's 16-35 during a 2-week photo trip, and came home unimpressed with the files. The 14-24 never disappoints. I will tolerate it's limitations, because it's just that good.
BTW, I hope you're prepared for the insane summer heat in some of those locations!
p.1 #14 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape
steve,
maybe pick up a used D800 for landscape? 36 mpx is a big improvement over 12 mpx especially for landscape. and after your road trip you should be able to sell it without much of a loss.
i shot a D800 w/12-24 f/2.8 last year and it is a great combo.
p.1 #15 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape
Here is my story.
I shoot with D800 and D700.
I had 17-35 f2.8. Sold it. And bought 16-35 f4.0. I really didn't like 16-35 and regretted selling 17-35. So I purchased another 17-35. Used it for a while. Then I had to have 14-24 f2.8. I am really happy with 14-24. And I acquired adaptor with filters from Fotodiox for 14-24mm. Now I am very happy with my set.
So.. I would choose 14-24mm. Regards, -Kee
Mar 22, 2013 at 09:18 PM
DavidWEGS Offline [X]
p.1 #16 · Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR II OR 14-24mm 2.8 for Landscape
