My friend is going to sell his Nikon 14-24 f2.8 and offered my to buy it, for 169dollars cheaper than the askin prices online are at the moment in norway. So i am thinking about buying it from him and sell my Tokina 12 - 24 f4 dx glass.
So I am wondering if anyone have some experience with the 14 - 24 mm? I see they also sell the 16-35 f4 vr new for a little bit more money that i would have to pay for the gentle used 14-24.
I am having a hard time deciding what will the best buy, I can add that i Have the Nikon D800, and i own Nikon 70-200 f2.8 vr2, Nikon 24 -70mm f2.8, and the Nikon50mm 1,4. And the Tokina 12 - 24 f4 pro dx.
I have tried the 14-24 today and its sharp, and its sharp in the egdes, and i see that doing star trail pictures and stuff like that also will work great.
Her is an unedited shot at f8 on a tripod today. http://www.flickr.com/photos/teigas2011/10589557476/in/photostream/lightbox/
My only concern is, that i also want to try to take long exporsure pictures like some rocks on the front and a silky sea. So then i do have to use more money on a filter adapter kit aswell? I guess?
The 16-35 f4 vr2 , is not that good for star trails and star pictures, but easyer to fit an a filter on. I also read that some say its sharper than the 14-24, and some people say its not, and some people say its not sharp in the egdes.
So i need some advice in the right direction. I mostly untill this day use wide angel lenses for car photos in golden hour, and some nature shots, the problem now is the Tokina i got is not fx, so would be nice to change it anyway. And i am thinking about experimenting with long exporsure shots, and perhaps some star trails.
So what do i do, i keep going back and forth, so would be nice with some tips and experiences.
14-24 filters are more expensive, but it's slightly wider and faster.
It's going to depend on what you shoot more often.
I have the 14-24, it's a good lens.
... And no time to use them.
The 14-24 f2.8 is sharper with the sharpest focal length being 16mm.
The 16-35 f4 vr is slightly less sharp (but still very good) with the sharpest focal lengt arount 24mm.
The 14-24 has a bit more vignetting, which is normal as it's more wide angle.
So optically, both lenses are a good choice.
These additional factors might help you decide:
- 14-24 is a perfect complement to your existing 24-70
- 16-35 has some overlap with your 24-70 but is more useful as a "single walk around lens" when you go on a city trip. Then again I would use the 24-70 for a city trip)
- 14-24 is faster (f2.8 allows shorter shutter speed so better at freezing motion) and offers more options to limit depth of field (by virtue of a wider maximim aperture)
- 16-35 has vibration reduction so it is easier to hand hold (for a give shutter speed)
- 14-24 does not allow normal filters as the front element is too exposed/curved.
- 16-35 does allow filters. Might be handy when you often use circular polarizers of neutral density filters (to increase exposure times for special effects)
- 14-24 allows for a wider field of view (look up the difference; it's significant)
- 16-35 allows for a narrower field of view (look up the difference; it's significant)
So, you have the choice between two very good lenses.
I don't know the condition of the 14-24 but if both were brand new I would personally go for the 14-24.
Because I love the extreme wide angle shots that you can make with it. This lens is fantastics for landscape photography. It's sharp as hell (which is important on a high resolution sensor like the D800). It's build like a tank. And it still offers some depth of field control.
So, that's the one I would take.
But find out which one fits your preferences best.
as everyone says, they are both great lenses
but have diffident spec
there are no hidden advantages / disadvantage
so look at the spec and choose for your self
One thing I like is VR as I hate tripods and don't use it for action shots
distortion & vignetting are easily corrected in Lightroom
...but I wish I had the Tokina 16-28 and $800 instead. I only shot it for an hour, but I loved it.
I was bouncing around like your question I chose distortion control over everything else. And the price of the Tokina was way better than the Nikkors. I do many times wish I had the 16-35 VR. VR & filters being the boon.
Here is the one issue that I do have - Filters. They exist but a Polarizer, and a couple of NDs it a huge issue as in cost and convenience. So far the best system I found is the Fotodox WonderPana 66 and to get what I would call a basic kit (Polarizer, Hard Grad ND8 (3-stop), ND32 (5-stop)) is $600! The kit is bulky, huge, and looks like to be a Pain in the a**. But for good images... that's what it will take. (Not happy about it though.)
Don't get me wrong, I love the lens - but the lack of filters (and not having any at the moment that cover the whole front,) probably does lead me not to use it as much. I have talked to a few, and read many more people who switched to the 16-35vr due to the VR, filters and the general usability is better. They all say the 14-24 was optically better, but the added VR, loss of only 1 stop of light, and the fact that software will fix the distortion, it is just a better fit.
Today I would say get the 16-35mm VR and let software fix what you don't like. Tomorrow I might be back to my 16-28. But right now looking at spending $600 just to put a Polarizer on a lens is really ticking me off at the moment.
If you don't need/want VR you might check out Tokina's 17-35 as well.
if we talk about UWA lenses, has someone tested the Distagon T* 2,8/15?
Through a window glass at 1/15 sec:
The VR does give a bit more ability at very slow shutter speeds...maybe one stop. And the filter issue on the 14-24...But as noted there is some distortion requiring a bit of correction in post with the 16-35.
However, my suspicions are if I did this again... the 14-24 would be my choice. Simply because it is reported to be sharper and also gives a slightly wider view.
I'm not a fan of the "Hyper sharp" images or extreme HDR either. Not sure what category that makes me fall in.
Can anyone toss up/share or send me a Raw (or JPEG with distortion correction turned off) 16-35 vr file that shows some distortion? I wouldn't mind seeing what kind of post work it requires and what it does to the image.
The filter for this lens is also not that big of a deal. Have a look at the cost of buying some good 77mm filters by Hoya or B&W; hence, buying one of each a UV, CPL, and ND filter or maybe one of those gradated ND filter....then compare that to the kit that is offered by Fotodiox.
I must admit this, however, this is not a lens for those that seek a light Ultra-Wide angle lens. I highly recommend getting a Black Rapid R7 strap to go with your body to get the weight off your neck. But, the results it produces makes this a non-issue for me. Moreover, I usually have my tripod too with me then this lens comes out allowing me to take full advantage of its amazing optics.
I take you get which lens I would go with....right?
In the meantime, I have an incredible 14m and I can get by at longer focal lengths (almost always 24 as I rarely use the middle - so I really have an awesome 14mm prime and OK 24mm prime in one lens).
At some point I will also buy the 24mm 1.4 for low light and when Nikon can cough up something optically better than Sigma's 35mm 1.4, I will buy that one too, as my daily style prefers primes, but see the benefits of a fast (if you can call 2.8 fast) zoom for travel).
I want so much. The only way I can restrain myself is to put $200 in a "camera" account every month and limit myself to that.
So my point as it relates to this thread is to point out a lens strategy that works for me and might illuminate something for you Teigas.
With lenses this wide I really don't see much need for VR.
Have anyone tried it on car photos? Will it be to extreme and wide? I usally have the Tokina 12-24 dx on my d90 and the 70 - 200 vr2 on my D800 and add in a couple of wide angel shots. I see i can sell the Tokina for a 1/4 of the money for the used 14-24, and put it towards the 14-24 or the 16-35. If its to wide i can always use it on my second body the D90, wich sell for so litle her i Norway, that i decided to keep it insted of selling it, more worth as a backup camera.