14-24mm or 16-35mm help!!
Discussion
Please can those with real world experience help me decide which Nikon lens to go for. The camera is a D700/800
The 16-35 f4 is smaller, lighter, has VR and can take a filter; the 14-24 f2.8 is none of those things but is sharper and about £450 more expensive. I borrowed a 14-24mm over the weekend and rather like it but I got seduced by Ken Rockwell's write up on the 16-35mm and decided on that one instead. Then I looked further into more technical reviews and most say the 14-24 is sharper (I think I'd like that for landscapes). Contrary to Ken's review!
Anyway, is the 16-35 too much of a compromise or is the extra cost of the 14-24 really worth it? I already have the 24-70 and 24, 35 and 50 fixed lenses. Just want a wider lens for landscape and creative options.
The 16-35 f4 is smaller, lighter, has VR and can take a filter; the 14-24 f2.8 is none of those things but is sharper and about £450 more expensive. I borrowed a 14-24mm over the weekend and rather like it but I got seduced by Ken Rockwell's write up on the 16-35mm and decided on that one instead. Then I looked further into more technical reviews and most say the 14-24 is sharper (I think I'd like that for landscapes). Contrary to Ken's review!
Anyway, is the 16-35 too much of a compromise or is the extra cost of the 14-24 really worth it? I already have the 24-70 and 24, 35 and 50 fixed lenses. Just want a wider lens for landscape and creative options.
Edited by ian in lancs on Tuesday 14th February 16:54
Whoa, whoa, whoa! 
There's a key bit of information early in your post: "D700/D800"
You realise that the sensor properties are going to be so different and pretty much demanding if you go D800 don't you.
I know you do - and as you probably know I've got my name down for the D800 and expect it to be a potentially difficult beast to tame!
If I were you and considering either it would have to be the 14-24. You really will want the best glass you can get - and learn the best techniques - and not go below f/8!
To be truthful I have not used either of those lenses, but 5 years ago I got a D2x and it was noticeable how mediocre glass was punished by the high pixel density in comparison with the D70 which was my first digital Nikon. It was all fairly irrelevant in film days, somehow!
Anyway a large number of factors come into play.
I sold a 20mm prime in favour of the 17-35 - the latter was noticeably better on D2x. Given you have 24-70, I think the nearest optical standard is more likely to be the 14-24 and it fits neatly in focal length. I'm just getting rid of a 35mm f/2, because I think it will be "average" compared to the 17-35mm when it comes to the D800. I am also not getting great results with my 70-200. I expect a lot to do with my technique, and since I use it infrequently I am chopping that in too. Nothing really to do with the glass which is good, but more that unless you use it a lot you don't develop the best techniques. Might be worth waiting and see what happens when people get their grubby mits on the D800 with real life situation, but Nikon promotional images use specific lenses - and not the 16-35mm - and they would have done that for a reason!
If you stick with the D700 - just my observation - I'd be just as happy with the good value 16-35mm unless you decide on a secondhand 17-35mm (not too sure if you can get them new).
There's a key bit of information early in your post: "D700/D800"
You realise that the sensor properties are going to be so different and pretty much demanding if you go D800 don't you.
I know you do - and as you probably know I've got my name down for the D800 and expect it to be a potentially difficult beast to tame!
If I were you and considering either it would have to be the 14-24. You really will want the best glass you can get - and learn the best techniques - and not go below f/8!
To be truthful I have not used either of those lenses, but 5 years ago I got a D2x and it was noticeable how mediocre glass was punished by the high pixel density in comparison with the D70 which was my first digital Nikon. It was all fairly irrelevant in film days, somehow!
Anyway a large number of factors come into play.
I sold a 20mm prime in favour of the 17-35 - the latter was noticeably better on D2x. Given you have 24-70, I think the nearest optical standard is more likely to be the 14-24 and it fits neatly in focal length. I'm just getting rid of a 35mm f/2, because I think it will be "average" compared to the 17-35mm when it comes to the D800. I am also not getting great results with my 70-200. I expect a lot to do with my technique, and since I use it infrequently I am chopping that in too. Nothing really to do with the glass which is good, but more that unless you use it a lot you don't develop the best techniques. Might be worth waiting and see what happens when people get their grubby mits on the D800 with real life situation, but Nikon promotional images use specific lenses - and not the 16-35mm - and they would have done that for a reason!
If you stick with the D700 - just my observation - I'd be just as happy with the good value 16-35mm unless you decide on a secondhand 17-35mm (not too sure if you can get them new).
I have a D700 (c50k shots)and a D800 on pre-order and saw your post about how difficult the D800 would be so I'm going to read the reviews carefully before actually committing. My thoughts about glass are to get the best possible glass but its heavy to drag aound the countryside, limited zoom range, expensive but if its like the 24-70 and the 70-200 probably worth it. Or I could save £450... Decisions!
ian in lancs said:
which 85mm 1.4? I have both 1.8D and 1.4D the 1.8 is sharper. I was going to sell the 1.8D but decided to keep it. Interesting your comments about the 70-200. I hated it and then it just seemed to click. Love it now!
85mm - the f/1.4D. Like you I had the f/1.8. That was one of my most used lenses before I had a reorganisation. I absolutely LOVE the f/1.4, but I don't think it's because it's any sharper, just that the bokeh really is as good as they say. On the basis that any shots with this will probably be 99% out of focus anyway, I think it's a good bet for the D800 One of my favourite shots using the D2X and the 85mm f/1.8 in the US in 2007 is hanging on the wall behind me - a dramatic Arizona landscape on the way to Monument Valley. I wouldn't say it's a good photo, and I really hope I take at least one better before my life ends, but it really sums up just how lovely the f/1.8 is - I had that lens for 11 years. I would recommend either. My f/1.4 was a Fleabay bargain (£440 - four years ago) and I would only part with it for a f/1.8!
The 70-200mm is a lovely lens (again I got a Fleabay bargain by being really patient) but I had parted with a 180mm f/2.8 AF lens - and that was a dream to use. Can't fault the 70-200mm, I just know that after many months I will suddenly think to myself "where's the 70-200mm?" and then I realise that I haven't used it much and, handheld at least, you need to practice and practice with it. I love the AF lock buttons, I love the images when I get them sharp, but I can live without it - and moving to FX will probably want to find something longer.......
Oooops! Going way O/T!
K12beano said:
If I were you and considering either it would have to be the 14-24. You really will want the best glass you can get - and learn the best techniques - and not go below f/8!
Whoooah. What do you mean? The 14-24 is sharp from f2.8 isnt it? No need to stop down if you dont want to.The 16-35vr looks poor in the corners though. 17-35f2.8 is ok?
K12beano said:
recisely! Use from f/2.8 all he way down to f/8 .......but no further on the D800!
Nooooo! If you need more DOF then stop down! OK you may get slight pixel level softness from diffraction but that is better than having key subject matter OOF! And at the same print size as a D700 you wont notice any change!Back to initial problems with the 70-200. I've just read this on thom hogans review "Lose the AF-ON button. VR does not operate unless you partially press the shutter release. Thus, if you use the AF-ON button to acquire focus and then stab at the release, you're probably not giving the VR enough time to do its job fully. You can press the AF-ON button to trigger focus, and then press the shutter release partway to let the VR acquire and stabilize, but some people find this to be awkward." my happiness with the lens coincided with me changing back to the shutter button for focus. Seems to make sense.
As for the 14 vs 16 debate - the 14-24 argument is winning!
As for the 14 vs 16 debate - the 14-24 argument is winning!
The 14-24 is a good lens but a bit of a lump, not unmanageable though. Robert White sell a Lee special for filters, no 10 stop or pola though, not that it would be much use at 14 anyway. Never see the point in grads with stills so I wouldn't worry about filters.
Do you 'need' a zoom? Have you considered a 14, 20, or 24 prime? Two are probably the same combined weight as the 14-24, or less, although I think you'll still have problems with filters on the 14. Not sure of the relative qualities of these compared to the 14-24, I did borrow an older 20 and as I recall it wasn't so hot in the corners wide open, but stopped down for landscapes, it was fine. How well any of these will perform on the 800 will remain to be seen.
Although not as wide, another great and compact solution would be http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/lenses/zeiss-zf-2-18m... and you can still use you filters, if you must.
Do you 'need' a zoom? Have you considered a 14, 20, or 24 prime? Two are probably the same combined weight as the 14-24, or less, although I think you'll still have problems with filters on the 14. Not sure of the relative qualities of these compared to the 14-24, I did borrow an older 20 and as I recall it wasn't so hot in the corners wide open, but stopped down for landscapes, it was fine. How well any of these will perform on the 800 will remain to be seen.
Although not as wide, another great and compact solution would be http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/lenses/zeiss-zf-2-18m... and you can still use you filters, if you must.
http://www.europe-nikon.com/en_GB/product/nikkor-l...
Built in rear filter holder....
Always fancied one - I got a bargain Sigma 14mm. Soon realised why nobody wanted one of those, awful flare, not controllable, soft in all parts..... don't like! Now the Nikkor...
Mind you, no real contest against the 14-24mm with its Nano coating.
Built in rear filter holder.... Always fancied one - I got a bargain Sigma 14mm. Soon realised why nobody wanted one of those, awful flare, not controllable, soft in all parts..... don't like! Now the Nikkor...
Mind you, no real contest against the 14-24mm with its Nano coating.
Thought so, It's a shame the Lee adaptor for the 14-24mm is so expensive.
I'm thinking of going Full GFrame this yeaar D700 or 800 and choosing what Wide angle is a hard decision and one
i dont really want to mess up since they are pretty much the only lenses i use.
The 17-35mm f/2.8 seems nice but i dont know if i would find it wide enough.
I'm thinking of going Full GFrame this yeaar D700 or 800 and choosing what Wide angle is a hard decision and one
i dont really want to mess up since they are pretty much the only lenses i use.
The 17-35mm f/2.8 seems nice but i dont know if i would find it wide enough.
...Mole... said:
The 17-35mm f/2.8 seems nice but i dont know if i would find it wide enough.
Beautiful lens - can't wait to get mine on FX. I always missed what a 20mm is like.Anyway, just stitch a couple of D800 RAW files together and you can get as wide as you like!
(Your computer will implode, but hey!)
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff