I just listed my 14-24mm f/2.8 and plan on getting the 16-35mm f/4 VR. Anyone else, or am I making a mistake? I guess the lack of standard filters and the limited range are what are making me make the move. 14-24 is perfect for landscapes, but people look crazy with that lens . . .
segura wrote:
I just listed my 14-24mm f/2.8 and plan on getting the 16-35mm f/4 VR. Anyone else, or am I making a mistake? I guess the lack of standard filters and the limited range are what are making me make the move. 14-24 is perfect for landscapes, but people look crazy with that lens . . .
I don't think that the 16-35 will have much less distortion than the 14-24 at equivalent focal lengths. Speaking of distortion, looking at the new 24f1.4 samples, the distortion control looks amazing for a 24mm wide angle. Almost can use it as a portrait lens
The 16-35 doesn't look anywhere near as good in the corners as the 14-24mm at overlapping focal lengths . . . probably they will be OK stopped down. The 24/1.4 looks fantastic, though . . .
But on the LCD you can zoom in to 100%, whereas a 900px image has been reduced from its original size and will definitely look better than what you can expect from the unmodified image capture.
Still, the image quality is likely to be That Good and the samples look very appealing. From the specs, I think the 16-35/4 is definitely a better fit for me than the 14-24/2.8 for all sorts of reasons.
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
But on the LCD you can zoom in to 100%, whereas a 900px image has been reduced from its original size and will definitely look better than what you can expect from the unmodified image capture.
Still, the image quality is likely to be That Good and the samples look very appealing. From the specs, I think the 16-35/4 is definitely a better fit for me than the 14-24/2.8 for all sorts of reasons.
Agreed. The 16-35 is tempting due to the size and ability to use filters but I don't shoot enough landscapes to justify it. I love my 14-24 and to sell it to purchase this lens I feel would be a mistake.
segura wrote:
I just listed my 14-24mm f/2.8 and plan on getting the 16-35mm f/4 VR. Anyone else, or am I making a mistake? I guess the lack of standard filters and the limited range are what are making me make the move. 14-24 is perfect for landscapes, but people look crazy with that lens . . .
Don't let go of the 14-24 untill you try and compare the 16-35.
You could be very sorry indeed!
There is a lot of difference between 14 and 16mm
and F/2.8 compared to f/4.0
Bruce Sawle wrote:
I love my 14-24 and to sell it to purchase this lens I feel would be a mistake.
Especially since the thing was just announced and is not yet available. See it, test it, try it, then figure out what you want to do. Those people selling 14-24 lenses right now are moving way too fast and risking a very significant mistake.
Who is "we" in your mind? And why would you not want Nikon to gain market share and a larger user base? Hmm... maybe you have some objection to Nikon producing and selling more cameras and lenses, being able to reduce prices due to economies of scale, investing more in R&D, and broadening the product lines they can offer?
Hey, this place is great! I just stepped in from the Canon fora! We hoarde are moving over next month, and they sent me in advance, to suss out some good locations to set up camp.
(I do however love my FM2n and Ai-S 50mm 1.2) RRRoger wrote:
I think he is afraid that a swarm of Canon trolls will come over and start whining in this forum like they do over there now.
I just sold my 14-24mm for a 16-35VR. For those saying don't jump, you can always return the 16-35mm if you don't like it. I've always felt first hand experience is the best way to decide. If I can't tell issues with it w/o having the 14-24mm side by side then it's not enough of an issue for me. For all my paid work, 16mm should be wide enough provided they've at least matched the 14-24mm in terms of barrel distortion (it's only fault). After fixing all my 14-24mm images for distortions they were around 15.5mm anyway... Having filters in a smaller lighter package and pocketing $400 is nice as well. The biggest loss for me will be 2.8 inside with my son which is just fun shooting for me. But I realized every time I've done that it's been in the daylight (near a window) and f/4 would work. As for the VR haters, yeah, it's not NEEDED on this lens, and I would have preferred it to be ~$740 like canon's version w/o it, but think of this... FOUR STOPS of VR means at 16mm you can shoot at roughly 1 second hand held. That means nice blurred motion w/o needing a tripod for when you can't use them. That will be fun.
