DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> 16-35 f4 VR or 14-24 f2.8 VR dillema
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 12 of 12, (reverse)
AuthorThread
05/27/2011 07:20:10 PM · #1
There's quite a few crontradictory opinions about these two lenses on the web.

Some say that the 16-35 is the sharpest, some say that in terms of resolution the 14-24 is more adequate to the upcoming new cameras that Nikon might be preparing with more resolution... and I'm quite stressed because I can't decide wich one to buy.

for practical reasons I think that the 16-35 would be a good choice for assignments, weddings and other type of jobs. Also for nature and landscape because it would take filters and the other one won't.

in the other hand I'm affraid that f4 woun't keep me happy anymore. I've got the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8VR and f2.8 is really a must have on certain jobs. And I can't afford to loose money and sell the 16-35 if I'm not happy with it.

Can anybody help me on this? Any experience on both? Or why did you decided for one of these two? In practical terms is there a big deal of difference between 16 and 14mm angle of view in full frame?

PLEASE HELP.
05/27/2011 07:43:21 PM · #2
Rent both and decide for yourself.

Personally I won't own an F4 lens. F2.8 isn't always fast enough so I know F4 won't cut it.

Matt
05/30/2011 04:00:33 AM · #3
Renting is impossible in my location.

Any other toughts?
05/30/2011 08:55:04 AM · #4
Even tough the 14-24 isn't VR as the title of the post suggested I still think that the 14-24 is the best of the two. From what I have experienced. :)
05/30/2011 08:59:40 AM · #5
I've been thinking about the 14-24 for when i go full frame, apparently there is a lot of distortion on the wide end with the 16-35.
05/30/2011 10:53:59 AM · #6
You don't say what you intend to photograph with the new lens and that makes all the difference in the world as to which lens to chose.

Based on your listed lenses it kinda looks like you are just trying to fill out an area where you currently have no coverage.

I'm primarily a landscape photographer and my 16-35mm f/2.8 lens on my 35mm camera is absolutely my favorite lens... both because it has coverage perfect for landscapes, but because it has the highest optical quality of any lens I own.

For landscape purposes, if the optical quality is there, then that would mean the 16-35mm f/4 VR on your APS-C sensor is closest to what I use.

However, based on your images, it looks to me like the 14-24mm f/2.8 might be better for you as long as the lens has good optical quality. Its a little faster and a more "normal" focal length zoom lens, which might better suit your type photography.
05/30/2011 11:50:22 AM · #7
The 14-24 isn't VR... it was a mistake I made.

I currently own the D700, the 24-70 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8 VR, all Nikon plus a few other lenses.

My main target would be event photography (mainly weddings) and wide angle peopel shots for stock. And I would like to begin in to landscape photography.

As mantioned the 16-35mm has a big barrel distortion on the wide side, but in other hand a more usable range that could prevent me to swich lenses so often in the weddings. In the down side is the distortion. But for landscape it can take filters.

Is the distortion critical for the landscape photographer?


05/30/2011 01:46:52 PM · #8
I don't shoot Nikon but I will give a few of my thoughts, for better or worse.
Since you have the 24-70/2.8 there will be overlap with the 16-35 and I don't like distortion, which wouldn't do you any good during a wedding shooting in a church. There will be a discernible difference between 14mm and 16mm. The distortion may not be as bad for pure landscape but for any architectural shots it will stand out. Again, I know little of these Nikon lenses but it sounds like like the primary reason for this lens is the wide angle side of it and with bad distortion at 16mm and a lot of overlap from 24-35 with the 16-35, I would go with the 14-24, but that is just my opinion.
05/30/2011 02:25:48 PM · #9
Originally posted by Nuno:

Is the distortion critical for the landscape photographer?

Yes... it is for all photography, not just landscapes... it negates your lens' usability for wider-angled photography.

When faced with a choice between two lenses, buy the one with highest quality optics... you will never regret it.

Folks tend to overspend for the camera body and scrimp on the lenses. You should do exactly the opposite. Its the glass that matters and good glass works well on any body. Shabby optics doesn't work well on any camera body.
05/30/2011 04:36:19 PM · #10
The 14-24mm is the best glass available for Nikon in that range. That's a certainty. For me this would be an easy decision.

I think a good exercise would be to think about shooting at about 120mm. Would you choose your 70-200mm 2.8 or your 70-300mm 4-5.5? I think the answer's obvious. The same goes for shooting between 24mm and 35mm. You'd choose your 24-70mm 2.8 over the 16-35mm. And if you're doing event photography the wide angle will really help you out in tight, indoor spots. And you'll want the faster glass for sure.
05/30/2011 05:27:46 PM · #11
I chose to go with the Nikon 17-55 over the Nikon 14-24 because the 14-24 has the protruding glass on the front that prevents the use of any filters. I use CP's and grad ND's a lot in my landscape photography and I would really miss them for just an extra 3mm.
05/31/2011 11:16:28 AM · #12
Nikkor 17-35 f/2.8

No Nikon stable should be without one.

Nikon_Nikkor reviews
AFS-Nikkor 17-35 mm f/2.8 ED-IF 5

"(F5)5
(D1)5
(D1X)5
(D2X, D200)4.5-5
(FX: D3)IR:5
(D1, D2H, D70, S3Pro UVIR) This is an awesome lens developed with an eye to the digital D1 camera. Click here to see a test shot made with it. Compared to the 20-35 AF, this lens is slightly heavier and balances nicely on all modern Nikon bodies. Its IF construction makes for very fast AF action on the F5 and D1/D1X/D1H cameras. It is a two-ring design with a truly far-out optical formula, including aspherical and ED elements and a front that actually bulges inwards (!) in the centre. The sunshade is fairly anonymous as wide-angle zooms go, too. Filter size at 77 mm follows the new Nikon standard, and there isn't a rotating front. The exterior barrel has a smoother finish than the 20-35, although a hammered surface still is used.
Quick shooting with it on an F5 left me with an impression of extreme optical quality. I also checked the lens on a D1 and drew similar conclusions there. Sharpness, contrast, and colour saturation all are superb across the entire focal range. Vignetting in the frame corners is moderate at f/2.8@17 mm and largely disappears at f/4. On the D1/D1X, there is no perceivable fall-off at all at the wide end. At the opposite focal end, negligible fall-off is seen even at f/2.8@35 mm on the F5, and none on D1/D1X. There is some barrel distortion in the wide-angle settings, which however is kept under good control even at 17 mm. By contrast, set at 35 mm the lens exhibits a slight degree of pincushion distortion.
Virtually gone is the colour fringing that haunts the AF 20-35 lens. This gives the 17-35 Nikkor a significant advantage over all other similar lenses on the market (all exhibit plentiful of lateral colour aberration towards their shorter end, even the expensive Canon 17-35/2.8 L). This by the way was an improvement necessitated by the D1, which would not have taken the colour fringing of the 20-35 in its stride. The vestiges of colour fringing that may occur is outside the coverage of the lens when mounted on the D1. To put this into perspective for use of the lens on a full-frame 35 mm camera, I had to scrutinise my test shots at 40X magnification to detect the minute traces of residual lateral colour. For all practical and ordinary purposes, this lens is devoid of colour flaws. However, if you shoot close-ups, there will be observable (but slight) blue fringing towards the corners of the image.
The 17-35 performs extremely well when shooting into bright light, in fact its performance in this respects surpasses most prime lenses. Flare and ghosting evidently are strictly controlled. I've never used a zoom with this degree of superior flare and ghosting control before. Likely the fancy optical formula and the bizarre front element pay dividends in this respect, too. However, an early report by "Moose" Peterson claims this lens flares easily. His sample may differ from mine, or test conditions may be quite different. Leaving a UV filter on will make the ghosting much more visible so any filter should be removed before shooting into the sun.
Curvature of field for the 17-35 was very low, so it is eminently suitable for shooting flat as well as 3D subjects. It is quite uncommon for a wide zoom to perform in this way.
A full test of the 17-35 is given here. This review now includes news about production variability of the 17-35.
Added after having used this lens professionally for nearly 3 years: A heavily used lens will get more dusty in its innards and accordingly, be more prone to flare and ghosting. I've seen this occuring with my own sample, so be warned. On a more positive note, my 17-35 has taken a lot of beating without any other ill effects. The surface finish seems to stand well up to wear, too.
On the D3, the 17-35 behaves in an exemplary fashion. Only a small amount of vignetting into the extreme corners occurs at the widest end, and stopping down helps mitigate the issue. However, the age of the design is shown by corner sharpness @17mm being less crisp unless you stop down well beyond f/5.6. So I have reduced the rating ever so slightly to cater for this observation.
IR performance: No hot-spots seen with any camera tested so far.
The AFS 17-35 Nikkor is rapidly becoming one of the Nikon legends. You cannot go wrong with this lens.
"

Message edited by author 2011-05-31 11:21:12.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 07:13:20 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 07:13:20 AM EDT.