Nikon 24-70mm or Tamron 15-30mm or Nikon 14-24mm

spitz2400

Hi everyone,

So I'm kind of torn up on what to get out of the Nikon 24-70mm, Tamron 15-30mm, and the Nikon 14-24mm.
I'm currently using a 18-105mm kit lens as a general lens and am upgrading to a D750 soon. Most of my photos according to Lightroom are at the wider end of the lens spectrum (18mm).

I primarily take landscape photos without filters ATM but will occasionally do other photography with my 35mm 1.8 and my 85mm 1.8.
Could someone give me some advice?

I can get the Tamron for around $880 USD, the 24-70mm for $1400 USD and the 14-24mm for $1500 USD.
The drawback with the Tamron is that there are no proper reviews online apart from ergonomics which a lot of reviewers say is very solid. Also the warranty is only valid in Japan which is a bit difficult...

Thank you for any help in advance!

calengor

Assuming you're currently using a nikon crop sensor camera, that's a 1.5x conversion factor. Based on what you said you've been using, the focal lengths converted to what they would be on a full frame camera are:

Crop = Full
18mm = 27mm
35mm = 52.5mm
85mm = 127.5mm

Just some things to consider. If you're looking for a lens that covers most of that range, you may want to look at the 24-120mm f/4. If you're shooting a lot of landscapes, you're probably shooting around f/9 now and could go down to f/16 or more, so a fast lens may not be necessary for you.

Keep in mind that you also have to apply the 1.5x conversion factor to the aperture when going from crop to full frame. This applies to the depth of field you're getting out of the individual apertures.

Crop = Full
f/1.8 = ~f/2.7
f/2.8 = ~f/4.2
f/4 = ~f/6
f/9 = ~f/13.5
f/16 = ~f/24

calengor

One more thing, your 35mm f/1.8G DX lens will work on a full frame camera in FX mode as long as you keep the apertures open. I've used it at f/1.8 and f/2 without much problem. Yes, there is some vignetting at the edges and slight distortion, but applying lens corrections in LightRoom fixes most of it as long as your subjects are near the center. Yes, it wont give you the flexibility of a 35mm f/1.8G FX as far as the apertures you can use, but it works for some situations.

35mm full frame translates to ~23.3mm on a crop frame sensor. Hyperfocal distance for landscapes at f/1,8 on a full frame camera at 35mm focal distance is 24 meters, giving you acceptable focus from 12 meters to infinity. At f/2, hyperfocal distance is 21 meters, giving you acceptable focus from 10.7 meters to infinity.

spitz2400

Wow thank you
I knew about the focal lengths but I didn't really know about the aperture DOF bit. I find my 35mm too tight in most situations in my d7000 so yeah...

However I'm still not really sure which to select. My hands are pretty shaky so I would prefer VR but I want a lens with good build quality that would last me quite a long time.

I'm leaning towards the 15 to 30 right now but it is more limited compared to the 24-70no...

calengor

Are you used to shooting that wide? 15-30mm on a full frame camera is the equivalent of 10-20mm on a crop sensor. At 24mm you're still wider than your current 18mm once you go full frame.

Re: vibration reduction

Rule of thumb is that a normal person can handhold at shutter speeds of 1/(focal distance for full frame) seconds without blurring the image. Granted not every person can do that. Some are indeed shakier than others and the increased weight of a full frame camera and lens may contribute to fatigue and making the photographer shakier. For things like landscapes you may be better served by just getting a decent tripod and using it rather than relying on VR. If you're photographing people then you'll want to be shooting at at least 1/50 unless they're staying very still and then most any vibration you're applying will be rendered moot by the faster shutter speed at those apertures.

spitz2400

I find 18mm alright but sometimes I wish for wider and I'll take multiple photos and stitch them together.
90% of my photos are under 26mm on my DX camera so 40mm FX and 65% of those are at exactly 18mm.
Personally, I like wider photos...

I do have a decent carbon fibre travel tripod but it is a bit annoying to set up so sometimes I will just bump up the ISO unless I'm taking longer exposures.

heartyfisher

i think the 24-120 would be a good fit for you ..

sevencrossing

....... am upgrading to a D750 soon.......
I'm currently using a 18-105mm kit lens as a general lens
I primarily take landscape photos= my 35mm 1.8 and my 85mm 1.8.

The AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR "kit lens" that comes with the D750 should cover this range on an Fx camera

are your 35 and 85 dx or fx Do you use f 1.8 very often?

My hands are pretty shaky so I would prefer VR

If you want a wide angle lens, with VR, I think the only option is the AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR

I take 80% of my landscapes with lens on a D800 The VR allows me to avoid using a tripod, even at twilight

spitz2400

How slow can you go with the 16-35?
I've heard there is quite a lot of distortion at the wide end and many copies aren't very sharp.

I will use 1.8 when the situation aruses. I just switch lenses when I need more light or for a note specialized setting.

Golf007sd

@spitz2400: Spend some time reading our forums; moreover, looking at the images posted on PAD and then you will be able to see, first-hand, how many of us use these lenses you are after. I take it you are not in a rush, so use the time to educate yourself

How slow can you go with the 16-35?
I've heard there is quite a lot of distortion at the wide end and many copies aren't very sharp.

Get yourself a good tripod and you can go as slow as you want on the shutter speed. Moreover, if you want take tack sharp images of a landscape, a tripod is the best way to do it.

Distortion....all wide/ultra-wide lens will have this...it is just the nature of the optics.
Not sharp....not sure where you read that. Everyone that I know that has the 16-35mm f/4G, and know how to use it, have produced amazing shots. I personally prefer the 14-24 2.8.

spraynpray

@spitz2400:

How slow can you go with the 16-35?
I've heard there is quite a lot of distortion at the wide end and many copies aren't very sharp.

Everyone that I know that has the 16-35mm f/4G, and know how to use it, have produced amazing shots.

Ali: "...and know how to use it" can you expand on that? a 16-35 VR is surely a simple lens to get sharp shots from and it is sharpness that spitz2400 is concerned about?

@spitz2400: I have only heard good things about the 16-35VR and it is a lens I have in mind to buy so I am interested in your sources for comments regarding variability in the sharpness from example to example - can you share them with us please?

sevencrossing

<<blockquote rel="spitz2400">
I've heard

......there is quite a lot of distortion at the wide end .
.all ultra wide angles will have some distortion, it is easily fixed in LR

......and many copies aren't very sharp
If you search the web hard enough, you find someone rubbishing every lens and camera on the market
No zoom, even at the top end, is going to be as sharp as a top end prime
my 16 -35 has earned it keep many time over. it recently won me £1,000 in a local competition
If you want something sharper, look at the new 20mm f 1.8 or the 24mm f1.4 nether have vr

spitz2400

Thank you all for your replies!!!

About the tripod thing, I meant how slow shutter speed handheld. I do have a decent tripod but I don't always have it with me. As I said before my hands are naturally very shakier and the VR on my 18-105mm is only a bit useful.

From what I've read on some forums and review sites is that the 16-35mm has quite a lot of distortion compared to other lenses such as the 14-24mm. I am aware that it can be corrected in Lightroom but since I am very finicky I would prefer it not to have that much distortion in the first place...

As for the sharpness bit I didn't mean that the 16-35mm isn't sharp in general, but that some copies of the lens are not as sharp as others. I know that this happens with almost all lens, but from my research from a few months ago I found that a small number of 16-35mm owners had issues.

I am in quite a hurry... I will have to purchase this lens tomorrow as I am in Japan and lenses here are a LOT more cheaper than my home country.
e.g. $905 USD in Japan, $1400 USD in New Zealand

I was originally set on the Tamron 15-30mm as from what I read it is pretty amazing and has a very reasonable price but I was advised to wait until the pricing for the rest of the world comes out and expert reviews come out. However, I personally don't think the US pricing will be cheaper and the NZ pricing will be a lot lot more.
The photos here look promising to me:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3779643#forum-post-55046938

Sorry for not clarifying earlier, I was on my phone.

sevencrossing

I will happily hand hold my 16 -35 at 1/30; slower than that subject moment becomes an issue

the 14 - 24 is a completely different specialist lens it is big, expensive will not accept 77 mm filters

I am very finicky

then forget zooms and get the gobsamking amazing 24mm f 1.4 you will not find a rubbish review about this amazing lens

Golf007sd

@spitz2400: Now that we know you are in a pinch and that you find your "hands are naturally very shakier" then you should get the 16-35. The VR will help, but you will have to really work on your technique if you do not want to carry around a tripod. But if you do, then get the 14-24 2.8...if the price is right.

@spraynpray: Andrew, shooting with a wide-angle lens, takes some getting used to. If you recall, PitchBlack himself said he had no idea what he was doing (he had the 14-24)...or at least something to that nature. With wide-angle lens in the hand of a novice will provide itself some challenges. He or she will have to pay attention to all kinds of things.... paying close attention to the corners for unwanted objects, angles in taking the shot, how the light effects the over all look of the shot given the vast field of view...etc..etc. The photographer has to look at the seen and know what to keep and not. These lenses can be very frustrating and disappointing if all one has ever used is a telephoto where by the subject have, for the most parts, been isolated by shooting it the lenses maximum focal length. Much like, ultra-wide, you sometime do not need to shoot at the shorter end.

spitz2400

Hi everyone

I eventually bought the new Tamron. I tried out all the lens in store before I purchased then.
The Tamron had the better build quality for price and had Vibration Reduction like the 16-35mm. The pictures I compared in store with the 14-24 were comparable with the Game on but keep in mind it was on my DX camera.

It is huge and heavy at 1.1kg and larger than the 14-24

Once again I would like to thank you all for your time and help!!!

heartyfisher

Would be interested to see your opinion and photos :-) congrats !

PS: which part of hobbitland do you come from ? ;-)

spitz2400

Here are some photos of the lens mounted on my D7k and battery grip.
http://imgur.com/a/PlKou
(Sorry for the potato quality pics... They were taken on my phone)

Initial impressions is that it is VERY HEAVY and large, it dwarfs my D7k
The zoom ring has quite a large range. The VC works amazingly, I can go down to around 1/5 of a second at 15mm handheld in a room.
Focus speed is very quick.
The lens is quite 'soft' at 2.8 but I need to do some AF fine tuning once I get home, focus is a bit off ATM.
Minimum focusing distance is very small (28cm)

Oh and I'm from Auckland :P

heartyfisher

Nice review of the tamron .. much like what @spitz2400 says..

heartyfisher

Found another nice review ..

mustangdaren

I use both the Nikon 24-70 and the Nikon 18-35G for landscape. I prefer the 18-35 over the 24-70. I am using a D600 and D610, the image quality of them both is near equal but the 18-35 has a huge size/weight advantage. If I was looking at a wider lens without using filters I would go with the Tokina 16-28. Read the reviews at Lens Rentals.com. For the money you can't beat it and it has about identical IQ as the Nikon 14-24. For the cost you could get a Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 and a Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 or Nikon 24-120 f/4 for the cost of the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8. Personally I would stick with a lens that you can use filters on since if you ever do sunrise or sunset shots you will want a graduated ND filter. You can use Cokin sytle filters with adapters on the 14-24 but those adapters are quite expensive. The Nikon 16-35 is nice but at 16mm has a lot of distortion and is not quite as sharp. It is tack sharp at 18mm but the 18-35 is tack sharp wide open f/3.5 at 18mm so that is the reason I chose it over the 16-35. If you are shooting on a tripod no need for VR. I am heading on a 1000 mile photo adventure in the mountains this week so I will try and do some side by side comparison photos of the Nikon 24-70 and 18-35 lens for the forums. I may even take a few shots using the 28-300 also. I like that lens but only shooting at f/8 with it. Basically if money is not a factor, I would own the Nikon 14-24, a filter adapter and Cokin Pro filters but for blue collar workers like myself we have to get the best bang for the buck.

IanG

@spraynpray: Andrew, shooting with a wide-angle lens, takes some getting used to. If you recall, PitchBlack himself said he had no idea what he was doing (he had the 14-24)...or at least something to that nature. With wide-angle lens in the hand of a novice will provide itself some challenges. He or she will have to pay attention to all kinds of things.... paying close attention to the corners for unwanted objects, angles in taking the shot, how the light effects the over all look of the shot given the vast field of view...etc..etc. The photographer has to look at the seen and know what to keep and not. These lenses can be very frustrating and disappointing if all one has ever used is a telephoto where by the subject have, for the most parts, been isolated by shooting it the lenses maximum focal length. Much like, ultra-wide, you sometime do not need to shoot at the shorter end.

I'm sorry, but I cannot agree - the 'challenges' you mention are called 'photography' - every lens has it's characteristics and has to be handled differently, wide angle, normal or telephoto. Paying attention to what is in the viewfinder is what it's all about. Frankly, I'm very disappointed with the work from a large number of 14-24 users here as none of the above 'criteria' are considered - I put this down to inexperience.

ANY lens has to be 'learned' - just because you own an extreme wide angle zoom doesn't make you a photographer does it now...

Ironheart

I think you just agreed with Golf :-??

IanG

I see what you mean - I'm simply trying to say that I don't think the fact that a lens is different from what one is used to using should be a reason to avoid using it. If this were the case, we would never try anything new.

On a purely personal note, I find it sad to see so many converging verticals, with no particular pictorial merit, from ultra-wide angle owners - that, to my mind is inexperience. To make matters worse, these mistakes rarely seem to be corrected - but I digress... :-)

spraynpray

To be honest Ian, converging verticals have their place and some images wouldn't be of any merit without them such as when used to draw the eye to a point. Obviously there are some times when they should be corrected, but not all.

kenadams

my 16 -35 has earned it keep many time over. it recently won me £1,000 in a local competition
If you want something sharper, look at the new 20mm f 1.8 or the 24mm f1.4 nether have vr

I'm going to venture a guess, unless it was a sharpness competition, your winning it didn't have anything to do with the lens...

About the 24mm, at the moment I'd rather suggest the Sigma than the Nikon, it's half the price and at least as good of a performer.

The Tamron 15-30 is huge, huge, huge!