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

PB_PM

The 14-24 on an FX body is much wider than the 12-24mm on a DX body (so is the 16-35mm). I'm sure it wont let you down. You will see distortion at 14mm, but that can be corrected in post.

HipShot

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

Seconded!

Msmoto

I heard car shots…..1/40 see, f/4 with the 16-35VR
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/6957557988/in/set-72157629876874643

I am of the opinion the VR is nice even on a wide angle. Here is the same lens at 16mm, 1/15 sec wide open

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

I suspect the VR is more useful for those of us in the geriatric crowd... )

teigas

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

Yeah its a great hobby to get the mind of things Malignt melanoma wich spread around and lastly to the brain, thank you for new resarch and clinical trials. I was orginally given up, they said for 3 years that i was going to die after a few weeks, because standar treatment diddent work. A few weeks after i got to try a new treatment ipilimubab , it did not remove the cancer, its still in the brain, but its not active . So i enjoy taking photos for a hobby But enough off topic

Hard choice this..

I am thinking mostly of trying star trails, regular Norwegian scenery, so i think i will end up with the 14-24, and if I dont enjoy it, I will probably only if i am unlucky loose 100dollars in a year. I have taken many picures with the tokina that i was happy with, and did not use a filter. So perhaps worth a try the 14-24 , when i get a good used deal price Some small HDR involved in a few of them. Here is a few with the old tokina and d90:
http://i2.wp.com/www.teigen.be/blogg/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Natur12.jpg
http://i1.wp.com/www.teigen.be/blogg/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Natur15.jpg?resize=1024,680
http://i1.wp.com/www.teigen.be/blogg/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Natur18.jpg

This is also the tokina: http://i0.wp.com/www.teigen.be/blogg/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/DSC_0299-copy_small.jpg
But ND 8 hoya filter i borrowed.

adamz

I love the Norway scenery, been there 3 times so far. BTW: which part of Norway are you from?

teigas

The wrong part for the Northern Light. But a nice place with fjords and mountains If you ever heard of Hardanger? Trolltunga? Anyway I live at the west coast of Norway 3 hours south with car from Bergen. Just between Stavanger and Bergen. Where did you travel when you where in Norway?

Golf007sd

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

Here...here.


@teigas: You will not have any issue using the 14-24 for car photography. It is all about the look you seek to capture in relation to angles and distance to your subject. The lens is truly very flexible...let your imagination fly.

As for HDR, the 14-24 is my go to lens for such photography. Have a look at my HDR Set to see if my usage of it agrees with your taste.

kyoshinikon

I love mine (14-24mm) with car photos. Ill dig one up and post soon. There is no such thing as a "more" useful range just different shooting styles. Sometimes Ill sneak out with the 14-24mm on my primary and the 17-35mm on my secondary body... Unless you know why you need it or you are having camera shake problems at low shutter speeds VR is just an almost useless selling gimmick. I wasn't happy with the 16-35mm I tried and being an f/4 it sealed the deal that I would never get one.

adamz

IMHO, VR is nice with telephotos but on UWA is rather useless unless you have very shaky hands. to get sharp snap @14mm you need at least 1/20... seriously, how often will you shoot with slower speed... I can go down to 1/2 on my 70-200 handholding and that's pretty much what's possible w/o tripod, but that's extreme.

EiTaro

I had the same dilemma a year ago. I wanted a wide angle zoom to complement the 70-200 VRII with 50 1.4 being the third lens on my list. I had to go to photokina in order to test both of these lens on D800 before making any purchase. I had no issue with the size and weight of 14-24 but I didn't like the zoom range (too limited). In addition although not a decisive factor it's very convenient that 16-35 has the same filter diameter as the 70-200. From time to time I miss the extra width and speed of 14-24 and I'd bought it as 14mm prime.

sevencrossing

IMHO, VR is nice with telephotos but on UWA is rather useless unless you have very shaky hands. to get sharp snap @14mm you need at least 1/20... seriously, how often will you shoot with slower speed... I can go down to 1/2 on my 70-200 handholding and that's pretty much what's possible w/o tripod, but that's extreme.

am I reading this right half a second with a 70 -200 ?

I don't always shoot at 16 mm with my 16 -35 a lot of the time I am at 24 mm at f8 VR seems to make a difference

I know the 16- 35 is a very good lens and this thread seems to confirm, so is 14 -24

I don't think there are any hidden differences

the 14 -24 is wider but bigger and more expensive than the 16 -35

the 16 -35 is "only" f4 it is smaller, cheaper but has a greater range and has VR

both lenses are recommended by Nikon for the D800E

teigas

Thanks for all the input Keep them coming I think i will might try the 14-24 very niced used, and see if its somthing for me. I am able to buy if for a litle less than the 16-35 new. If i dont like it i can always sell it again and buy a used 16-35 for less. I guess the value of the 14-24 do not go down low in the near future. Mostly because I want to test some star photo in the winter The only thing i will miss i think is the nd filter possibility, but then again i can play with my Hoya ND8 on 24-70, and if i really get hooked on landscapes with large nd numbers i can get the 16-35 or buy an expensive filter set for the 14-24

Msmoto

I am offering confirmation that the 14-24 is a good choice and here is a set from the NAIAS, many of which were taken with 24mm f/1.4 on full frame. Some were taken with a 10.5 f/2.8….but 14mm would also be nice in capturing the autos as a specialty shot.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/sets/72157632584664847/

adamz

@sevencrossing - 1/2 @ 200mm, I've managed to get some acceptably sharp snaps at 1 sec but that's even rare for me and the keepers ratio is ridiculously small.

sevencrossing

Interestingly 5 of the winning photographs of the Wildlife Photographer of the Year 2013 were taken with the Nikon 16 -35 f 4

Nikon also seem to have more winners than Canon

about 3 times more Fx winners ( D4 D3s D700 D800) than Dx (D7000 and D300s D90)

adamz

and even more taken by Nikkor 200-400/f4

teigas

The 200-400 is a far out of my price range But would loved to try it on bird photo`s or other wild animals. Perhaps a extender on the 70-200 will be picked up at some point in the far future

DenverShooter

shot a lot of cars with my 14mm to 24mm F/2.8 Nikon. It makes nice auto pics.

Denver Shooter

teigas

shot a lot of cars with my 14mm to 24mm F/2.8 Nikon. It makes nice auto pics.

Denver Shooter

Thanks for the feedback. Do you have somthing on flickr or some other place? Would love to see some examples.

sevencrossing

The 200-400 is a far out of my price range ,,,Perhaps a extender on the 70-200

if you can afford it you will much better off with the new 80-400

teigas

Some last question if i want to take some star photos , lets say a tree in the foreground and the sky filled with stars? How much better will the 14-24 do it a f2.8 compared to 16-35 on f4?

PB_PM

Depends on how close you are to the subject matter. If you need the 2 extra mm, the 14-24mm is better, if you don't? That's up to you.

proudgeek

There's a whole thread on this. I've done a little astrophotography, and in general I'd say that the extra stop helps in that it allows you to keep your ISO (and hence your noise) down. But PB_PM is right; a lot will depend on the distance between you and the trees. If it's relatively small, you're not going to want to shoot wide open, for depth of field reasons, so the 16-35 f/4 is fine, since you may be shooting at f/8. However, bear in mind that you can only use so long a shutter speed before your stars start to look blurry due to the earth's rotation. You're going to want to find a balance that allows you to shoot at a shutter speed of max 25-30 seconds, without sending your ISO too far above 3200 (at least that's been my experience; yours may vary). That may be tough to do unless you shoot wide open (f/2.8 or f/4). If I were going to get a lens strictly for astrophotography I'd choose the 14-24 f/2.8 in a heartbeat.

teigas

Its not strictly its just somthing I wanna test out I like to test a lot of things and shoot a litle bit of everything, like studio photograpy, cars, local concerts , etc etc, this is mosly because i like to take pictures, and I like to learn new stuff. So the minus with the 16-35 is missing f2.8 bad for astro, not as sharp in the corners, and more barrel disstorition? How bad is it if in camera raw you update lense profile to the 16-35 and select auto is that enought or do you need to do more work?

Advanteg can zoom more in , but misses 2 mm in the wide area, and takes filter on 77mm.

roombarobot

I got the Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8. It is $700 and seems to often be compared to the Nikon 14-24mm. It is a very well built lens. Perhaps worth a look for you.