14-24 or 16-35? « Nikon Rumors Forum

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon Lenses

14-24 or 16-35?

(31 posts) (21 voices)

Tags:

12 Next »

MaxiVisVires

member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 34
offline

Hello, I own the Nikon 14-24 2.8 lens among the other 2.8 lenses Nikon has to offer. Recently I had to purchase the Nikon 16-35 F/4 lens, as I needed to use it in combination with a CPL.

Currently all I use my 14-24 for is when I do landscape shots. My question is, should the 16-35 suitably replace the 14-24 for what I use it for? Am I just being too narrow minded on my views of the capabilities of the 14-24 as it has more uses than just for landscapes?

I shoot with a D4 and D800, so I do utilize the FF lenses.

I wouldn't mind swapping out my 14-24 for a tilt shift lens, so any help and insight is appreciated.

Posted 10 months ago #
starralazn

preferred member
Joined: May '12
Posts: 112
offline

i think unless you use the 14-24 at 14 and 15mm, the 16-35 can easily replace it, simply because most landscape shots are taken with tripod and stopped down to beyond f8. a lack of depth of field rarely helps in a landscape shot.

at least thats what i see.. i'm not very good at landscapes, although i am trying :)

Posted 10 months ago #
sevencrossing

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 1,265
offline

as one of the few people to own both, you are probably the best person to answer this
I have the 16 -35, but I suspect a duff one, it is not really sharp at the edges, even at f8. It's fine for weddings, when only the bride needs to be sharp and I just need an impression of her surroundings

Another question and may be a new thread

given the power of perspective correction in of LR4 and CS6. is there a need for tilt shit lens ?

for landscapes needing a lens wider than 24mm I use pano stitching in CS5

Posted 10 months ago #
Eric

senior member
Joined: Jun '12
Posts: 363
offline

I have the 14-24 and the 17-35. I am in the same boat as I wanted a wide zoom that I could use with either a CPL, half grad or an 8 stop ND. It is a tough call. I prefer the 14-24, but like you, sometimes I want filters. I have contemplated getting the 16-35 and selling the 17-35, but the VR doesn't buy me anything if shooting on a tripod and that 2.8 aperture is nice...So I haven't been able to justify the 16-35. The 14-24 is incredible at 14mm, and since I love that perspective, I can't part with it. The 17-35 gives me the filters for set shots etc., so I need it too. If I had the 16-35 (instead of the 17-35), I am sure I would be happy with it as well.

I actually see these lenses as different (if overlapping) tools. I know that having owned the 14-24, I would miss it if I sold it.

So my solution to almost the identical problem was to keep them both.

Posted 10 months ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

@MaxiVisVires - I'm sitting on the fence on these two as I need to get a wide angle since my move to FF. I will be interesting what you see between the two. I haven't seen (or maybe don't remember anyone) who had both at the same time to compare. I keep hearing what sevencrossing has observed, that the edges are not tack sharp but I haven't seen any images that I would say they weren't an acceptable trade-off for the VR and ability for 77mm filters.

I have seen some good shots from both the Tokina 16-28 & 17-35 f/4 as well. I see those as options as well.

I have often looked at the 24 or 45 TS lenses, which are great, But I just don't have the actual need for my stuff to justify the $$ for them.

sevencrossing said:
given the power of perspective correction in of LR4 and CS6. is there a need for tilt shit lens ?

I may be picky on that, but I have never seen software ever make that type of correction to look remotely as good as a real TS lens. It does alright in a pinch but to me the images never look "right". But your right, that probably should be on another thread.

Posted 10 months ago #
msmoto

big gun cougar
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 2,736
offline

Oh, yes.... I happen to have the 16-35mm f/4.0 VR, and I think it is sharp.

Here is one http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/7158416575/sizes/o/in/set-72157630185531140/

And http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/7300836788/sizes/o/in/set-72157630185531140/

Then the 24mm f/3.5PC

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/7182102649/sizes/o/in/set-72157629960779508/

I understand all these "corrections" in PP but the fact is, when this is done to the extent to compensate for a 24mm pointed upward, the image will be so narrow there will be nothing left. I love the manual aspects of the PC. At least when I remember to set the aperture and focus the thing, ha, ha, ha :-).

There is no doubt the the 95° horizontal angle of the 14mm is wide vs. the 89° of the 16mm. And the 24mm has 70° angle but with the 11mm shift it covers far more than the 70°. I would guess in the 110° horizontal range with shift. I think it is sharp as well, way out to the edges. One has to be able to adapt to the manual lens, but the nice feature of the D4/D800 with the virtual horizon in the viewfinder, is it makes it possible to hand hold the PC! I have my function button set to turn on Virtual Horizon.

Now, I have never had a 14-24mm f/2.8 so I may have a bias. But I ma happy with the combination I have for wide work. Of course, I use a 10.5mm f/2.8 modified fisheye as well. An excellent lens, DX on FX.

Posted 10 months ago #
SquamishPhoto

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,076
offline

I think in this instance they are referencing the PC-E Nikkors that boast tilt and swing movements as well as all degrees of shifting. Setting aside the dramatic optical improvements of the new generations of PC-E lenses over the older PC lenses, its most important to note that the newer lenses can take advantage of the unique and unreproducible optical effects known as the Scheimpflug principle. What that means is, that with careful manipulation of tilt and swing movements one can alter the plane of focus and can thus render certain sections of the framing entirely in focus. Doesn't matter if the subject matter only takes up a few inches in a macro shot or if its a rolling landscape encompassing several miles of space, its all in focus. Now, and this is where lots of people stumble, its often only a small to medium sized wedge-ish shaped zone of focus that fills a fairly small portion of the frame, maybe 20-45% of the frame depending on subject matter and working distances. The example below should help illustrate this point:

D700 • PC-E 45mm • 6º vertical tilt

If you look carefully you'll note that the climbers entire arm and entire face in focus. With any other type of lens, even stopped down, you will not be able to get your depth of field wide enough to encompass that much of the subject in focus. Examining the rock surrounding the climber one can see sections in focus and others very much blurred and out of focus that are both along the same line that the traditional focal plane would have occupied. I could blab on about this stuff for a while, but I think I got through the crux of it.

Also, its worth noting that the corners are sharp at f2.8 on the 14-24mm. And, although this may seem obvious, it can shoot at 14mm. If that doesn't have immediate resonance with you, then clearly you are not the target market for the lens, plain and simple. :]

Posted 10 months ago #
kanuck

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,405
offline

Ahh yes the age old dilemma,

I don't think the 14-24 can be replaced by any other wide angle lens to be honest. You are in an excellent position to just simply own both. This is what I plan on doing or at least own the 14-24 and 17-35. I have had the 14-24 but needed to sell it due to financial problems. The 14-24 and 16-35 are both designed for different purposes so if you can, why not own both? I'm sure you are aware of the Lee and various other manufacturers filter kits for the 14-24 also right? Very pricey and hard to find in stock though..The 14-24 is great for interior work, and landscapes when the light is just right. I had no problems shooting with it without filters it still produces amazing images.

Posted 10 months ago #
Juergen

preferred member
Joined: Sep '11
Posts: 227
offline

@squamish
Thank you very much for the PC-E sample.
This is exactly the reason, why I am hesitating so much with my decision on a wide angle lens.
If wide angle, then then it should be a PC-E. Not only for distortion control, but also for focal depth. Unfortunately the widest Nikon PC-E is 24mm.
So I guess eventually I will end up with a super wide angle like the 14-24 and the 24 PC-E.

Are you using your PC-E 45 also for macr work?

Jürgen

Posted 10 months ago #
msmoto

big gun cougar
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 2,736
offline

I tried the 24PC (new) with extension tubes and was not impressed. Maybe I will try again. The big difference in the 14-24 & 16-35 is the "normal" lens of the 35mm end. 24mm is a bit wide IMO for a walk around. Of course, I may decide some day to get just a 14mm or something like that as a prime. Each lens to me has it's own personality and I find I like them all!

Posted 10 months ago #
sable hill

junior member
Joined: Apr '12
Posts: 7
offline

I didn't care for the 16-35 on the D800. Maybe it was a bad copy, but it was not sharp at the corners and very overpriced. In fact, i took some comparison pictures with my DX Tokina 12-24 with camera in FX mode and found it sharper. You can only use the Tokina from about 18 up to 24, however.

Posted 10 months ago #
Gabbb

preferred member
Joined: Dec '11
Posts: 251
offline

sable hill said:
I didn't care for the 16-35 on the D800. Maybe it was a bad copy, but it was not sharp at the corners and very overpriced. In fact, i took some comparison pictures with my DX Tokina 12-24 with camera in FX mode and found it sharper. You can only use the Tokina from about 18 up to 24, however.

You definitively had a bad sample. The 16-35 is one the worst Nikon lenses in terms of sample variation. I love mine, but it took me a lot of tested samples to find a good copy, with that said a 14-24 is still somewhat better at the corners, but it's not a big difference.

In my opinion the 14-24 is a little bit better in terms of sharpness(really tiny difference), but the 16-35 has a ton of advantages that are worth thinking about. VR, lack of the large bulb-like front element (flare occurs much less often), filters (NR grads can be very important for landscape photogs). Also 35mm is a very usable focal length on FX, when I was a kid I've been shooting a fix 35mm lens on a Mamiya rangefinder all the time, 24mm will force you to swap lenses a lot more often.

Posted 10 months ago #
kyoshinikon

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 1,200
offline

Both the 16-35mm and 17-35mm have been hit or miss. I have both the 14-24mm and 17-35mm and they are both tack sharp, however the 17-35mm isn't famous for being consistent with sharpness. The 16-35mm I tried I disliked for both the extra size and the lack of sharpness but I assume it was a bad copy...

Gabbb said:\ 24mm will force you to swap lenses a lot more often.

It depends on what you are shooting. Nikon makes a nice 24mm Ts...

MaxiVisVires said:
Currently all I use my 14-24 for is when I do landscape shots. My question is, should the 16-35 suitably replace the 14-24 for what I use it for? Am I just being too narrow minded on my views of the capabilities of the 14-24 as it has more uses than just for landscapes?

I shoot Sports, photojournalisn, cars, and even some portraits with my 14-24mm. It is not made to shoot landscapes, the 24mm Tilt Shift is more suited for that. I personally prefer to use a 50mm or my 80-200mm for landscapes as it flattens out the perspective distortion (not like a 4x5 but closer)... A wideangle is so that you can get close to your subject, not so that you can stuff more scene into a shot. You are limiting yourself by using it in the wrong situation...

Posted 10 months ago #
golf007sd

preferred member
Joined: Nov '10
Posts: 585
offline

MaxiVisVires said:
My question is, should the 16-35 suitably replace the 14-24 for what I use it for? Am I just being too narrow minded on my views of the capabilities of the 14-24 as it has more uses than just for landscapes?

My response to your first question is a big: NO!. The to your second question is: YES!

Here are some proof I found on flickr:

Posted 10 months ago #
Rx4Photo

preferred member
Joined: Oct '10
Posts: 951
offline

^^ Those photos above are examples of why I'd like the 14-24mm. I won't hesitate to get on my knees or belly to get a cool shot with that lens. Next to a Fisheye I think that 14-15mm focal length is fun. I've even seen some pretty radical model portraits shot with that lens.

Here's what's interesting. I was in a local camera shop a few months ago and tested their only copy of the Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR and it was not very sharp either. Seems that same thing keeps popping up in various threads.

Posted 10 months ago #
SquamishPhoto

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,076
offline

kyoshinikon said:
I shoot Sports, photojournalisn, cars, and even some portraits with my 14-24mm. It is not made to shoot landscapes, the 24mm Tilt Shift is more suited for that. I personally prefer to use a 50mm or my 80-200mm for landscapes as it flattens out the perspective distortion (not like a 4x5 but closer)... A wideangle is so that you can get close to your subject, not so that you can stuff more scene into a shot. You are limiting yourself by using it in the wrong situation...

The funny thing about your statement is that, when you really think about it, you're actually the one limiting yourself with the lens. I use it for everything you listed, including landscapes, and Im sure they're even other ways neither of us have thought of to utilise the lens. In fact, for at least half of my large panoramas I'm using the 14-24mm @ 14mm to stitch 8 to 20+ images. But, like you, I also use other focal lengths to achieve different styles of landscape work, including the PC-E 45mm, the 85mm f1.4, the 200mm f2, the 300mm f2.8 & f4. Below are a variety of examples of landscape, sports and pets using all of the lenses listed thus far. Ill include a list at the bottom with lens and camera specifics so that people can make their own guesses first:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-All shots taken on a D700-

1. 300mm - pano
2. 14mm - pano
3. 14mm
4. 200mm
5. 45mm - pano - stack
6. 14mm - pano
7. 300mm - pano
8. 200mm - pano
9. 45mm - pano
10. 14mm - pano
11. 14mm - pano
12. 14mm
13. 300mm pano - stack
14. 14mm @ 23mm
15. 14mm
16. 14mm

My point is that the lens works great for plenty of jobs and telling others that they're using the lens wrong just makes you sound like a snob. And, worse than that, it makes you sound like Ken Rockwell. *shiver*

:]

Posted 10 months ago #
Gabbb

preferred member
Joined: Dec '11
Posts: 251
offline

An other thing to note, the 16-35 is focusing much closer, very useful if you ask me.

Posted 10 months ago #
msmoto

big gun cougar
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 2,736
offline

My suspicion is, the quality of the person behind the lens is far more important than the lens. While my choice was the 16-35mm VR, I might have rethought this and may still rethink this in the days to come and get the 14-24 in addition. Or at least a wide prime. I do have the 10.5 which as some know I have modified to use on the FX format. And it is good, but is not distortion free. And the 24mm PC, when used with the stitching techniques, also can be useful.

So, I do not see either as having an "advantage" over the other, but simply a different use.

Posted 10 months ago #
proudgeek

preferred member
Joined: Oct '10
Posts: 222
offline

Below are a variety of examples of landscape, sports and pets using all of the lenses listed thus far.

Beautiful images Squamish. You may have just cost me $2,000. :) I've been thinking in reading this thread that the 17-35 is plenty wide enough.

Posted 10 months ago #
kyoshinikon

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 1,200
offline

SquamishPhoto said:
The funny thing about your statement is that, when you really think about it, you're actually the one limiting yourself with the lens. I use it for everything you listed, including landscapes, and Im sure they're even other ways neither of us have thought of to utilise the lens. In fact, for at least half of my large panoramas I'm using the 14-24mm @ 14mm to stitch 8 to 20+ images. But, like you, I also use other focal lengths to achieve different styles of landscape work, including the PC-E 45mm, the 85mm f1.4, the 200mm f2, the 300mm f2.8 & f4. Below are a variety of examples of landscape, sports and pets using all of the lenses listed thus far. Ill include a list at the bottom with lens and camera specifics so that people can make their own guesses first:

My point is that the lens works great for plenty of jobs and telling others that they're using the lens wrong just makes you sound like a snob. And, worse than that, it makes you sound like Ken Rockwell. *shiver*

:]

Ill agree with you on that :) I guess I wasn't trying to say he used the wrong tool for the job as muck as he was thinking about focal lengths in a limited way. One can choose to fill/not fill the frame with any focal length as it is more about why you are using the focal length to achieve your vision. I do admit I was wrong in saying that the 14-24mm is wrong for the job as it is a great landscape lens. I just have learned that it is a nightmare to stitch a pan produced by a 14-24mm (The one below is about 35-38 images)

Posted 10 months ago #
ericbowles

senior member
Joined: Jun '09
Posts: 56
offline

I chose the 16-35 over the 14-24 for two situations that are important in my photography. The 16-35 has VR. While 98% of my landscape images are from a tripod, VR is useful for images from boats, canoes, etc where a tripod is not useful. The other plus of the 16-35 is filter threads. I rely on the Vari-N-Duo for long exposure stream images. It's a major area of emphasis for me. The filter threads are somewhat helpful for using grad filters, but I could live with hand holding the filter if necessary.

The 14-24 has superb image quality - better than the 16-35. The 16-35 is pretty good - better than the 17-35.

Posted 10 months ago #
Fargo911

member
Joined: May '09
Posts: 46
offline

For those people that mentioned using the 24 or 45 pc-e lenses, do you think they are worth it? What percentage of your shots would you say you take with it? I have been lusting for the 24 pc-e, but it is hard to justify the price if I am only going to use it for a small percentage of shots. I do shoot mostly landscape and have been using the 16-35, and can think of a couple of times that I would have liked the tilt ability.

Posted 10 months ago #
msmoto

big gun cougar
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 2,736
offline

Having both the 16-35 and the 24PC, you are correct on one thing about "are they worth it in terms of using it,etc. However, the PC can be used fro stitched panos by the shift of a total of 23mm from right to left and will give results ith minimum artifact. And if one goes with the idea that the only difference between a little girl and an old lady is the price of her toys....oh well, this is not working, ha, ha, ha....

I love the PC especially for walking around the city and doing buildings. If one does a lot of architectural stuff, the corrections with the PC are way beyond what can be achieved in post processing. And, with a virtual horizon in camera, handholding is possible. The 16-35 is my walk around lens quite often.. ..

Posted 9 months ago #
andyp

member
Joined: Jun '12
Posts: 32
offline

As msmoto notes I think the 16-35 would make a better walk around lens, I love my 14-24 but find I am wanting a 35mm prime. For all of the reasons stated in favor of the 16-35 I will probably have to get one at some point (filters, VR), and the price is easier. With all that said it is hard to ignore 14mm and when needed is fantastic

Posted 9 months ago #
Gabbb

preferred member
Joined: Dec '11
Posts: 251
offline

I wonder about the differences in weather sealing. I used the 16-35 in light rain already, I'm just curious, if the 14-24 is better in this aspect..

Posted 9 months ago #