I want to get Wide - So Wide :) Nikon 16 - 35 or 14 - 24

S

Syd

Suspended / Banned
Messages
315
Name
Alex
Edit My Images
No
I am at the point of completing my lens collection and just received a Nikon 24 - 120 f4 to use as my walkabout lens. HOWEVEVER I am just not that smitten with it - i'd rather use my 24 - 70 any day and just live without the extra reach. So - That leaves me with a 24 - 120 mm to return and a desire to cpomplete my lens line up in a different way.
Ever since I sold my Tokina 11 - 16 I have missed my wide angle lens (although it was my least used lens) It was capable of some really interesting and fun images. Now to coice is do I go for the 16 - 35 which gives me quite a useable range OR do I throw caustion - and all my pennies - to the wind and go for the 14 - 24 ????
I shoot alot of Flash and interior photography along with lots of people , babies and pets - What do you guys think. Has anyone out there played with the 2 ? Is the 14-24 THAT much sharper??????
 
Have you thought about buying a second body, a crop camera and then buying the Tokina 11-16mm again, this gives you an effective 15.5-24mm which isnt too far off the 14-24mm

A used d300/d7000 and the Tokina would be cheaper than the 14-24mm lens and give you second body options as well.
 
The sigma 12-24 works very well on a D700. Im selling mine to fund the 300mm f/4 I need, and Im going to miss it a lot! Not as sharp as the 14-24 but about quarter of the price!
 
I love my Sigma 10-20 on my D300,so when I bought my D3 I wanted a ultra wide f/f lens. I was going bite the bullet and lash out on the 14-24 but asked advice on here first. Someone pointed me towards the new 16-35 (it only came out last year) and i have not regretted it. It cost £850 which is £400 less than the 14-24,it as sharp if not sharper and of course it takes screw in filters which the 14-24 doesn,t. During the winter months I did a lot of indoor shots in museums with it and was able to take handheld shots at really low shutter speeds with the help of the excellent VR system. The 16-35 is f4 but I don,t really think you need 2.8 with this type of lens.
So the short answer is go for the Nikkor 16-35 f4 VR.
 
Syd said:
I am at the point of completing my lens collection and just received a Nikon 24 - 120 f4 to use as my walkabout lens. HOWEVEVER I am just not that smitten with it - i'd rather use my 24 - 70 any day and just live without the extra reach. So - That leaves me with a 24 - 120 mm to return and a desire to cpomplete my lens line up in a different way.
Ever since I sold my Tokina 11 - 16 I have missed my wide angle lens (although it was my least used lens) It was capable of some really interesting and fun images. Now to coice is do I go for the 16 - 35 which gives me quite a useable range OR do I throw caustion - and all my pennies - to the wind and go for the 14 - 24 ????
I shoot alot of Flash and interior photography along with lots of people , babies and pets - What do you guys think. Has anyone out there played with the 2 ? Is the 14-24 THAT much sharper??????
Click to expand...



I have the nikon 14-24 and use it on a D3 and D700, if you like wide lenses you will love it. A few words of warning though, its a pretty big heavy lens, you cant fit filters and as you already know its expensive. But its a great lens.

Would I buy it again? Probably yeah, its a lot of fun and the result are very nice, but I don't use it as much as some of my other gear. Still its there when I need it.
 
Last edited:
I had the same lens consideration earlier, although slightly different targets :)

I also looked at (and finally decided on) the Nikon 17-35mm f2.8, awesome lens!! Heres my thread, interesting info, poll and links:
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=310089

Just noticed you are not too far from me, Im near Redhill in Surrey. If you fancy a trip up this way, you can try my one...
 
Last edited:
Sigma 12-24 is fine at 12mm on FX. No vignetting at all. I believe the Nikon 12-24 doesn't fare as well.
 
TCR4x4 said:
Sigma 12-24 is fine at 12mm on FX. No vignetting at all. I believe the Nikon 12-24 doesn't fare as well.
Click to expand...

vignetting of sigma 12-24 is not its biggest problem but the loss of resolution in the corners especially wide open definitely is
and also having a 2.8 always is a plus;)
 
I use a sigma 12-24, very good for architecture as there's practically no distortion even at 12mm. Does need stopping down though to get sharp across the frame. I had the use of a 16-35 vr, sharp at f4 but huge distortion at 16mm! Recently got a 20-35 f2.8d which is sharp wide open, superbly built and takes filters, looks like it's going to be a great walk around wide zoom, still keeping the sigma though for that ultra wide fov.
 
I had the Sigma 14mm F2.8 which was a smashing lens, but there was just too much flare and chromatic aberration for the pixel peepers at Alamy, so I sold it and got a 16-35. Loving it so far, and the VR is a bonus as well. I did want a 14-24, but I don't feel I'm missing the 2mm at the wide end, and the 'long' end is useful as I find myself switching to the 28-70 less now.
 
Thank you all for your views. I'm still perplexed though !!

14 - 24 So heavy :(, limited use but simply the best wide experience (£1200)
16 - 35 Similar to my 24 - 70 so quite useable, good range, VR, Price - but I've
read differing opinions on how bad the effects at 16mm are (£850)
17 - 35 Heavy, don't know as much about it and technically inferior to 14 -24 and same price £1300)

The 16 - 35 sounds like the winner atm I'd just like some users exp on how usable 16mm f4 is ????

Thee is also the 14mm 2.8 - but £1200 is just too much to stomach for an extreme prime !!
 
Last edited:
I use the 16-35 at 16mm quite a bit, and I correct any distortion in Photoshop, but I've only really noticed it when shooting architectural stuff. Not sure if I've used it at F4, I'll have to check some exif data next time I'm in Lightroom.

I'm using it on a D700 by the way.
 
I am going for the Nikon 14-24mm,hopfully picking it up tomorrow,going to replace my 18-35mm,already have the 24-70mm,14mm should be wide enought for me :)

Useing it on an D700
 
Last edited:
Syd said:
Thank you all for your views. I'm still perplexed though !!

18 - 35 Heavy, don't know as much about it and technically inferior to 14 -24 and same price £1300)
Click to expand...
Think you got mixed up here, the 18-35 is feather light and only £350
 
simonblue said:
I am going for the Nikon 14-24mm,hopfully picking it up tomorrow,going to replace my 18-35mm,already have the 24-70mm,14mm should be wide enought for me :)

Useing it on an D700
Click to expand...

I use one on my D3s. Awesome lens - you won't regret buying it!!!:thumbs:
 
Syd said:
I am at the point of completing my lens collection and just received a Nikon 24 - 120 f4 to use as my walkabout lens. HOWEVEVER I am just not that smitten with it - i'd rather use my 24 - 70 any day and just live without the extra reach. So - That leaves me with a 24 - 120 mm to return and a desire to cpomplete my lens line up in a different way.
Ever since I sold my Tokina 11 - 16 I have missed my wide angle lens (although it was my least used lens) It was capable of some really interesting and fun images. Now to coice is do I go for the 16 - 35 which gives me quite a useable range OR do I throw caustion - and all my pennies - to the wind and go for the 14 - 24 ????
I shoot alot of Flash and interior photography along with lots of people , babies and pets - What do you guys think. Has anyone out there played with the 2 ? Is the 14-24 THAT much sharper??????
Click to expand...

The 14-24 is sharper at wider angles, mainly in the corners. They even up a lot by 20mm. It's distortion is lower (4% at 14mm rather than 4.3% at 16 on the other) but by the time you hit 20mm both are fine (<1%).

On the other hand, the 16-35 has a lot more telephoto reach (you can use it for more subjects without lens swapping), the VR is surprisingly useful for interiors (where you want to stop down a bit anyway and you often cant use tripods), its much lighter, cheaper, takes filters and it very flare resistant (a major flaw of the 14-24 for outdoor shots and flash). Its sharpness is pretty good for most purposes, especially from F5.6.

For the kinds of things I use wides for, the minor increase in distortion is not relevant and the VR is very useful. The 14-24 is a wonderful engineering feat but I already have enough heavy gear to lug around, and the 14-24 is not a lens I would want to use in a "hostile" environment. The front element is rather exposed.

Why not rent both for a day and have a play? These are pricey lenses and a bit of testing is a worthwhile precaution.
 
Critical I said:
The 14-24 is sharper at wider angles, mainly in the corners. They even up a lot by 20mm. It's distortion is lower (4% at 14mm rather than 4.3% at 16 on the other) but by the time you hit 20mm both are fine (<1%).

On the other hand, the 16-35 has a lot more telephoto reach (you can use it for more subjects without lens swapping), the VR is surprisingly useful for interiors (where you want to stop down a bit anyway and you often cant use tripods), its much lighter, cheaper, takes filters and it very flare resistant (a major flaw of the 14-24 for outdoor shots and flash). Its sharpness is pretty good for most purposes, especially from F5.6.

For the kinds of things I use wides for, the minor increase in distortion is not relevant and the VR is very useful. The 14-24 is a wonderful engineering feat but I already have enough heavy gear to lug around, and the 14-24 is not a lens I would want to use in a "hostile" environment. The front element is rather exposed.

Why not rent both for a day and have a play? These are pricey lenses and a bit of testing is a worthwhile precaution.
Click to expand...

Thanks Steve.

It does seem that the 16-35 does appear to be leading the race admirably, it's just my ridiculous desire to have 'The Best' that is stopping me push the button.

You are probably right about hiring one, if I had done that with the 24 - 120 I wouldn't have the hassle invloved for everyone of returning it !!
 
It is also that I have been dissapointed with the 16 - 85 and the 24 - 120 that I have recently ordered and returned. Once used to the 24 - 70 , 70 - 200, 50 1.4, 105DC etc etc neither of those aforementioned lenses 'felt' right and I am worried that the 16 - 35 will 'feel' the same???

(Apologies for double post/spam) Stupid Stupid Boy !!!!!!!!!!
 
Last edited:
Syd said:
Thank you all for your views. I'm still perplexed though !!

14 - 24 So heavy :(, limited use but simply the best wide experience (£1200)
16 - 35 Similar to my 24 - 70 so quite useable, good range, VR, Price - but I've
read differing opinions on how bad the effects at 16mm are (£850)
17 - 35 Heavy, don't know as much about it and technically inferior to 14 -24 and same price £1300)

The 16 - 35 sounds like the winner atm I'd just like some users exp on how usable 16mm f4 is ????

Thee is also the 14mm 2.8 - but £1200 is just too much to stomach for an extreme prime !!
Click to expand...

Not sure where you got the prices but I paid 980 for the 17-35. Heavy = yes, but accepts standard filters, the 14-24 does not.
 
Another vote for the Sigma 12-24. Yes, it benefits a little from stopping down a couple of stops but distortion is to all intents and purposes not there (perspective exaggeration is there of course but that's due to the laws of physics!). It's not ideal if you use grad filters since the only way to fit filters in FX mode is by using gels in the holder behind the rear element. You can bodge them onto the front of the built in lens hood using blutack (or similar) and if using it on a Dx body, you can remove the centre of the bucket lens cap and fit (IIRC 86mm ø) filters.
 
Syd said:
It is also that I have been dissapointed with the 16 - 85 and the 24 - 120 that I have recently ordered and returned. Once used to the 24 - 70 , 70 - 200, 50 1.4, 105DC etc etc neither of those aforementioned lenses 'felt' right and I am worried that the 16 - 35 will 'feel' the same???

(Apologies for double post/spam) Stupid Stupid Boy !!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Well, welcome to the world of Canon. I agree Nikon just doesn't feel right :exit:
 
There is always Sigma 15-30, uber wide on full frame. My copy is VERY sharp
 
Syd said:
It is also that I have been dissapointed with the 16 - 85 and the 24 - 120 that I have recently ordered and returned. Once used to the 24 - 70 , 70 - 200, 50 1.4, 105DC etc etc neither of those aforementioned lenses 'felt' right and I am worried that the 16 - 35 will 'feel' the same???
Click to expand...

Would advise you try before you buy then - the 16-35 is put together well enough, but it certainly doesn't feel like £850 worth of lens, indeed the 24-120 f4 I had felt a bit more solid and reassuring in the hand.
 
daugirdas said:
Well, welcome to the world of Canon. I agree Nikon just doesn't feel right :exit:
Click to expand...

Firestarter :lol:

Sebastian said:
There is always Sigma 15-30, uber wide on full frame. My copy is VERY sharp
Click to expand...

I Havent looked at that lens - will do now, thanks :)

jpw said:
Would advise you try before you buy then - the 16-35 is put together well enough, but it certainly doesn't feel like £850 worth of lens, indeed the 24-120 f4 I had felt a bit more solid and reassuring in the hand.
Click to expand...

Hmmm that confir,s one of my fears - it shouldnt make any difference if the lens is great performing, however I like it to be enjoyable to use as well - I think I am just asking too much :eek:

So Nikon - would you please make a 14 - 40 which is pin sharp, has Shermanesque build quality, not too heavy and has a zoom function lifted out of my 24 - 70mm 2.8 Ooh and if it can be about £950 that would be just dandy :thumbs:
 
jpw said:
Would advise you try before you buy then - the 16-35 is put together well enough, but it certainly doesn't feel like £850 worth of lens, indeed the 24-120 f4 I had felt a bit more solid and reassuring in the hand.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but "weight" is not a sensible way to assess quality - the 16-35 is extremely well made - the fact that it is lighter is just down to the size of the glass elements. It still has a mag alloy outer casing and is fully weather sealed. Its also internal focusing and does not extend while zooming, so the sealing works even better and the result is more robust. I generally like lenses that can take a bit of abuse and this is one of the best IMO.

I would avoid the Sigma 15-30 on full frame. I used one on a DX camera and it was pretty decent, but the corner shading and resolution are not so encouraging on FX cameras. The Sigma 12-24 is better, very low distortion and moderately sharp stopped down. If you care a lot about distortion and want to go ultra wide this could be an option. CA is a bit of a nightmare, but correctable.
 
Last edited:
The big benefit of the Nikon 14-24 is corner sharpness, if this is not really relevant to you then I then the price may not be worth the extra expense. The other thing, is that the 14-24 on a full frame is really wide with a 114 degree FOV the Tokina 11-16 would have given you a 104 degree field of view. The 14-24 is almost too wide and I only really use mine for building interiors.

I am surprised nobody has mentioned the Tokina 16-28, 107 degree field of view and about half the cost of the Nikon 12-24.
 
I've got a 17-35 and a 14-24 and can confirm they are both superb lenses in their own right.

The 17-35 probably sees more use - you can fit filters on the front, a great landscape lens, very sharp in the centre at 2.8 and sublime throughout the whole frame at f/5 (based on 17mm on a D3).

The 14-24 is wider, heavier and more expensive but even sharper throughout the frame at 2.8 at the widest view. I use it for more 'in-car' shots of drivers and in garages where 2.8 is more valuable but filters aren't required.

I'd say, if money was no issue, forget the 16-36. It's not a top quality lens (not saying it's a bad lens, it's still got a plasticy feel) and cannot compete with either the 14-24 or 17-35.

DB
 
14 - 24 would be my choice, I only wish Canon did one :(
 
ah5168 said:
I am surprised nobody has mentioned the Tokina 16-28, 107 degree field of view and about half the cost of the Nikon 12-24.
Click to expand...

Thank you :)Hmm did not know of it till now = and i loved the 11-16
Have you used one ? As it sounds like a great aternative :)
 
No I waited and waited for Tokina to become available because I liked the 12-24 Tokina so much, but couldn't wait any longer as I needed a full frame wide angle so went for the Nikon 14-24.

I read all the review on the Tokina and they were all very good. If I had to replace the Nikon I would go for the Tokina.
 
ah5168 said:
No I waited and waited for Tokina to become available because I liked the 12-24 Tokina so much, but couldn't wait any longer as I needed a full frame wide angle so went for the Nikon 14-24.

I read all the review on the Tokina and they were all very good. If I had to replace the Nikon I would go for the Tokina.
Click to expand...

Thanks - me thinks I will chase this one up :)
 
Having read some more review I now just need to flog a couple of other lenses and make the purchase ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top