I have the 14-24 and 24-70 etc. IF, and that's a big IF since you are usually selecting the space and posing a group, you need wider than 24mm I recommend the fish eye defished with ImageTrends "Hemi" software ($30). People look good at the edges although horizontal lines will bend.
I very rarely shoot formals and groups on a tripod. Things are already moving very fast and unless we're not on an already ridiculous time line I don't feel like slowing it down.
For me there are many times when 24mm (FX FOV) isn't wide enough. A 17-35 would be just the thing.
I was pleasantly surprised to discover that the 16-35 works perfectly with a Nikon CP-II slim polarizer, all the way to 16mm. Obviously, you wouldn't want to shoot skies with a CP that wide, but it's still very useful to cut the sheen from leaves in landscapes.
My primary lens on a D700 would be the 24-70. This lens would take the UWA spot, it would be my second most used lens, or tied with a small portrait lens.
I shoot mostly landscapes at small apertures, my sweet spot is probably 17-24 for this lens, so for the sake of argument, lets say the 14-16 range and the 24-35 range doesn't come into question.
I can handle the weight and cost of each, and while I would miss filters, it is not a make or break. I do figure the VR is more helpful then the 2.8 for me as I mostly shoot while trekking and often without setting up the tripod.
So my question is, which is a sharper lens from 16-24 at small apertures, and how much of a difference is there, and is it outweighed by the VR in the 16-35?
Thanks for any and all advice. If the 14-24 is just a sharper lens at all aps, then it is the one for me, however, if they are fairly comparable, I think the VR tips me in favor of the 16-35.
I own the 14-24 and think I would have gone for the 16-35 had it been available for the simple fact that it can take filters... I'm sure both are amazing lenses but I live in fear of bashing the 14-24 as it's flying of my shoulder as I shoot the other camera...
That and if you want to shoot landscape/architecture you don't need to break the bank to put an ND grad on it.
I very rarely shoot formals and groups on a tripod. Things are already moving very fast and unless we're not on an already ridiculous time line I don't feel like slowing it down.
For me there are many times when 24mm (FX FOV) isn't wide enough. A 17-35 would be just the thing.
All great shots ... you sure use the "usefulness" of the 14-24 ...hehe ~~~ Testing the 16-35 right now . Packing up for a 2 months trip to China (while making a stop over @ Tokoyo...), I think the 16-35 shall be my main horse since the tammy 28-75 is MF on my D5000 ( it's a sharp lens but for walk around might be a bit slow ..)
Interesting just browsing through this thread. I realize I really don't use my 14-24mm that much, but whenever I do use it, I'm always happy with the results. I've been debating whether to sell it and go for a 17-35, but I just can't part with it right now. Maybe I'll add just add a prime for group shots.
Beni wrote:
The photographer for my sisters wedding used the 14-24mm. That thing at the wide end does nasty things to people anywhere near the edges. Really nasty. My dad was rather annoyed at how bad it made people look. My 17-40L is certainly not perfect but doesn't distort the edges as badly so I assume the 16-35 would be a better wedding choice.
The distortion of people or objects at the edges of the frame is due to perspective distortion, which is a function of the focal length and angle of view, and has nothing to do with the specific model or brand of lens being used. Using the 14-24 zoomed in to the 16mm or 17mm setting will give you exactly the same perspective distortion as any other lens at that same focal length.
The advantages of the 14-24 are that it is sharper than either of those other zooms, is a full stop brighter for easier focusing in low light, and goes to 14mm if you need it.
molson, while the streching kind of distortion is typical of certain focal lengths, each lens design does bring its own variation to the table, including but not limited to barrel, pincushion and moustache distortion. This is why it is useful to compare distortion stats for various lenses.
carstenw wrote:
molson, while the streching kind of distortion is typical of certain focal lengths, each lens design does bring its own variation to the table, including but not limited to barrel, pincushion and moustache distortion. This is why it is useful to compare distortion stats for various lenses.
I was responding to the post where someone was blaming a lens for a specific effect caused by a photographer using the lens improperly. Unfortunately a lot of neophytes confuse this effect with the other lens aberrations you listed, but they aren't really relevant to the point I was trying to make.
ExtendedPuppet wrote:
What about selling the 14-24 F2.8 for a 24mm F1.4 for available light reception shots? I'm thinking it may be a bit wide.
If the 35 1.4 becomes a reality, that would be nice for available light shots. dave
The 14-24 is easily one of my favorite lenses, but it's not nice to people near the corners. At all. I use it to get VERY close to my subjects, but if I was going to be shooting more people, I'd get the 16-35 instead. I bet f/4 would be fine.
