Nikon D800 should i get 14-24 f2.8 for it or 16-35 f4 vr? Cant decide.

teigas

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.

Elvishefer

Your problem is both lenses are great.

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.

Good luck.

John

As Elvishefer already pointed out both lenses are great.

The 14-24 f2.8 is sharper with the sharpest focal length being 16mm.
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Database/Nikon/Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-14-24mm-F28G-ED/(camera)/792/(cameraname)/Nikon-D800
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.
Why?
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.

autofocus

I have the 14-24. It's my go to lens for night sky and star trails. I also use it for video where it works extremely well. Yes, the filter is an extra expense. I have held my friends ND filters ("6x"6) in front of the lens for long exposure photos and it worked out well. I think you'll be happy with either one.

teigas

Thanks for the comments, its a few years old but I dont think he has used it it much. Cant see any scratches or marks on it. So it looks good. So the problem is really in my hands, star trails, wider than 16, or easier filters use, and back and forth. So would love to hear more users experienes, so I can get more info on everyday use, and what people use and why. Could probably buy the 14-24 have it for a year and sell it for almost the same i paid for it. If i dont use or like it.

sevencrossing

A think this question has been asked before
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

teigas

Yeah it think so too, but its nice to hear what diffrent peoples experiences and recommendations are. From people who either has the 14-24 or 16-35.

proudgeek

I would say that if you can get your hands on a gently used (with no obvious wear and tear) 14-24 for the same price as a 16-35, I'd get the 14-24, unless the ability to add filters was really important to you. That being said, I own neither, as I shoot with the 17-35.

teigas

Thanks for the input. The only filter demand i am thinking about is large nd stoppers, for silky water effect, moving skyes etc. But i got a nd8 from hoya, and can experiment with the 24-70 f2.8 and find out if thats somthing i might wanna do more, and then if that is somthing i can perhaps buy the adapter and filter for the 14-24.

sevencrossing

I have the 16 -35 and nearly always have it with me
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

adamz

for D800 you have only one choice: 14-24/2.8, IMHO the 16-35 is to weak for this body (at least all the copies I tried), not to mention that the distortion is unacceptable to me. 14-24/2.8 is indeed bulkier and has some drawbacks due to its size, but there's no other lens like that on the planet. it's sharper than any other prime in it's wider end focal length, works extremely well against sun.

shawnino

I have the 14-24 and it's just great...
...but I wish I had the Tokina 16-28 and $800 instead. I only shot it for an hour, but I loved it.

Ade

Well I use the D800e but sold my 14-24 in favor of the 16-35. Like @PitchBlack says, the 14-24 can be a pain to travel with. I had the lens for 8-months traveling throughout China, loved the quality, but at the end I still switched to the 16-35/4 just because I'm on the road so much.

PB_PM

for D800 you have only one choice: 14-24/2.8, IMHO the 16-35 is to weak for this body (at least all the copies I tried), not to mention that the distortion is unacceptable to me. 14-24/2.8 is indeed bulkier and has some drawbacks due to its size, but there's no other lens like that on the planet. it's sharper than any other prime in it's wider end focal length, works extremely well against sun.

Been shooting with the 16-35mm VR on my D800 for a few months now, simply a great lens. Maybe I landed the best copy ever made or something, but. I love it.

TaoTeJared

I have the Tokina 16-28mm F/2.8 and I found it equal to the 14-24 except wide open at 2.8. By f/4 I couldn't tell the difference. The distortion control is a bit better than the 14-24. Love the lens.

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.

adamz

I guess, different ppl different opinions though I have to agree with TTJ that the Tokina is a nice lens, though my choice is still the Nikon one

if we talk about UWA lenses, has someone tested the Distagon T* 2,8/15?

kyoshinikon

My 14-24mm is my prime shooter... Iove it!

Msmoto

Mmm... here is a series of snapshots taken in difficult lighting with the 16-35.

Through a window glass at 1/15 sec:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/7109226293/sizes/o/in/set-72157629876874643/

full set:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/sets/72157629876874643/

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.

sevencrossing

Although I am somewhat retired I still do a bit of real estate work. All of it is taken with the 16 -35 I have never had a client suggest my work could be a bit sharper

TaoTeJared

Although I am somewhat retired I still do a bit of real estate work. All of it is taken with the 16 -35 I have never had a client suggest my work could be a bit sharper

That made me laugh! I've never heard that complaint either. Although, I have had clients show me images from others that were too sharp (over-sharpened in post) and they didn't like it. Also "plastic skin" as well.
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.

Golf007sd

As an owner of the 14-24 2.8 I can assure you, this lens is without question: AWESOME. Their is a reason that Canon owner buy this lens so that they can mount it on their Canon bodies. It truly does offers the user a lot of options and will easily replace a number of primes. It crazy sharp edge-to-edge at all focal lengths...wide-open I might add. Chromatic adoration and color fringing is very, very well managed specially wide open. Distortion too. Vignetting is slightly noticeable at 14mm wide open...but very easily fix in PP. besides what Ultra-wide zoom lens does not have this? Hence, it is a non-issue.

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?

WestEndBoy

I have the 14-24 2.8 and love it for its 14mm performance. It is a little extreme from Nikon and Nikon has a nasty habit of discontinuing those so I bought it before the 17-35 2.8 - I want both. Does this sound crazy. Not really when you consider the uses I have in mind. The 14-24 2.8 is the best 14mm money can buy. The 17-35 2.8 is more "sane" with a more useful focal range for daily use and takes filters. I will wait until Nikon updates it to a "G" and then buy the 70-200 2.8 VRIII when it comes out. Combined with the best Nikon fast standard lens for low light I can get my hands on, that will be my travel kit. The standard is for low light. I suspect that I will usually zoom from 35 - 70 with my feet.

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.

Fred_B

I have the 17-35 and it's very useful. Takes standard filters. Fast 2.8, and built to last (like a tank). It's also reasonably small.

With lenses this wide I really don't see much need for VR.

PB_PM

If you were shooting landscapes at F10, and could get away with shots at 1/10s with VR, then you might understand. Sure you could use a tripod, but there are times and places where that may not be possible. Some parks or locations limit or restrict tripod use.

teigas

Thanks for the all the answears. I think i might end up with the 14-24, i was in a larger city today, because i have cancer and , got a ct scan, on the way i passed a Camera repair center, and took the 14-24 i might buy with me , and had them take a look at it, and they agreed, it was very litle used and gently used, no schratches or so.

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.

adamz

@teigas - on behalf of all mods here, we really hope you gonna be good and have plenty of time for shooting