Nikon 16-35mm f/4 vr or Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8

[vahidfar]

Hi,

Has anybody owned or used both of these lenses?
if you were to buy one of these, which one you would choose?

or do you have any other suggestion for a good wide angle lens for Nikon? ( either prime or zoom)

 

[raventepes]

It really depends on needs and what you want to accomplish with it. If I were doing, say a landscape, then the 16-35 would be my lens. If I were on a photoshoot and wanting a wide perspective, or just plain needing something for lower light or depth of field, I'd use the 14-24.

The thing is, both have their pros and cons. The 16-35 is a great lens, and unlike the 14-24, it accepts filters, however, it's also a slower lens and ever so slightly less wide than the 14-24. It's a bit more versatile than the 14-24 though, having more focal range. The 14-24 is as wide as you're going to get from Nikon without going to a fisheye. It's faster than the 16-35. It's built like a tank (and about as heavy as one, too). To my eyes, it's sharper than the 16-35, however VERY slightly so. Most people wouldn't be able to notice the nuanced differences.

In a perfect world, I'd own both, but using them very differently.

 

[vahidfar]

It really depends on needs and what you want to accomplish with it. If I were doing, say a landscape, then the 16-35 would be my lens. If I were on a photoshoot and wanting a wide perspective, or just plain needing something for lower light or depth of field, I'd use the 14-24.

The thing is, both have their pros and cons. The 16-35 is a great lens, and unlike the 14-24, it accepts filters, however, it's also a slower lens and ever so slightly less wide than the 14-24. It's a bit more versatile than the 14-24 though, having more focal range. The 14-24 is as wide as you're going to get from Nikon without going to a fisheye. It's faster than the 16-35. It's built like a tank (and about as heavy as one, too). To my eyes, it's sharper than the 16-35, however VERY slightly so. Most people wouldn't be able to notice the nuanced differences.

In a perfect world, I'd own both, but using them very differently.

Actually I want it mostly for landscapes and architectures, so I would say I will rarely need anything faster than f/4, having said that, I wanted to know mostly about the sharpness, lets say both shooting at 24mm with f/8, which one produce better photo?

 

[D-B-J]

The 16-35 is incredible. Sharp, the VR is incredibly useful, and it accepts filters. See the images below for examples of what this lens can do.

_RSP4593 by f_one_eight, on Flickr

Find the Light by f_one_eight, on Flickr

_RSP2950 by f_one_eight, on Flickr

Look Up by f_one_eight, on Flickr

And the VR in action... shot at 1/8th on a moving ferry!
Homeward by f_one_eight, on Flickr




Seriously, I love this lens. That being said, I haven't used the 14-24. My main driving force that convinced me this is the lens for me is that this accepts filters, and I was already heavily invested into the Lee System.

Cheers!
Jake

 

[vahidfar]

The 16-35 is incredible. Sharp, the VR is incredibly useful, and it accepts filters. See the images below for examples of what this lens can do.

_RSP4593 by f_one_eight, on Flickr

Find the Light by f_one_eight, on Flickr

_RSP2950 by f_one_eight, on Flickr

Look Up by f_one_eight, on Flickr

And the VR in action... shot at 1/8th on a moving ferry!
Homeward by f_one_eight, on Flickr




Seriously, I love this lens. That being said, I haven't used the 14-24. My main driving force that convinced me this is the lens for me is that this accepts filters, and I was already heavily invested into the Lee System.

Cheers!
Jake

Cheers mate, that was brilliant!

 

[PaulWog]

Take a look at the Tamron 15-30 VC. Another great option. For many, it offers the best of both worlds between the 16-35 and the 14-24. It does flare more though, it's not tried and true over the years yet, and it isn't made by Nikon. I'm not sure how it feels in the hands (other than heavy just like the other two lenses mentioned). It also has a front element that prevents regular filters, like the 14-24. Otherwise, there's not much downsides.

The 16-35 is appealing. It is N glass, has VR, offers a good range, and is professional glass. However, at 16mm, it does have lots of distortion, which could be a big downside for you. That, and it comes down to f4, not f2.8... which might only matter to you if you're doing something that needs f2.8 (maybe events / late night stuff without the flash), or if you're doing starscape photography.

The 14-24 is just really good at what it does, but it's expensive, doesn't have VR, and can't accept filters.

If you've got the budget for it, I would strongly consider buying one of the three lenses (don't rule out the Tamron). There's good reason to buy any of the mentioned lenses.

 

[D-B-J]

Take a look at the Tamron 15-30 VC. Another great option. For many, it offers the best of both worlds between the 16-35 and the 14-24. It does flare more though, it's not tried and true over the years yet, and it isn't made by Nikon. I'm not sure how it feels in the hands (other than heavy just like the other two lenses mentioned). Otherwise, there's not much downsides.

The 16-35 is appealing. It is N glass, has VR, offers a good range, and is professional glass. However, at 16mm, it does have lots of distortion, which could be a big downside for you. That, and it comes down to f4, not f2.8... which might only matter to you if you're doing something that needs f2.8 (maybe events / late night stuff without the flash), or if you're doing starscape photography.

The 14-24 is just really good at what it does, but it's expensive, doesn't have VR, and can't accept filters.

If you've got the budget for it, I would strongly consider buying one of the three lenses (don't rule out the Tamron). There's good reason to buy any of the mentioned lenses.

I mounted the 15-30 and snapped a few frames in store and it was damned sharp. It's a lot heavier and klunkier than the Nikon, obviously, because it's a 2.8. The front element is monstrous. Seems like a good lens, and I've heard those who have it really like it. But again, for me, I need a lens that can accept all the filters I currently use.

That being said, Lee filters new SW150 does have a Lee mod that allows it to mount to the Tamron...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[vahidfar]

Take a look at the Tamron 15-30 VC. Another great option. For many, it offers the best of both worlds between the 16-35 and the 14-24. It does flare more though, it's not tried and true over the years yet, and it isn't made by Nikon. I'm not sure how it feels in the hands (other than heavy just like the other two lenses mentioned). It also has a front element that prevents regular filters, like the 14-24. Otherwise, there's not much downsides.

The 16-35 is appealing. It is N glass, has VR, offers a good range, and is professional glass. However, at 16mm, it does have lots of distortion, which could be a big downside for you. That, and it comes down to f4, not f2.8... which might only matter to you if you're doing something that needs f2.8 (maybe events / late night stuff without the flash), or if you're doing starscape photography.

The 14-24 is just really good at what it does, but it's expensive, doesn't have VR, and can't accept filters.

If you've got the budget for it, I would strongly consider buying one of the three lenses (don't rule out the Tamron). There's good reason to buy any of the mentioned lenses.

Thanks a lot for the suggestion. I will check that out and will definitely consider it

 

[vahidfar]

I think my options would be either Nikon 16-35mm f/4 or Tamron Tamron 15-30 F/2.8

 

[goooner]

I think my options would be either Nikon 16-35mm f/4 or Tamron Tamron 15-30 F/2.8

Are you shooting with a full frame camera?

 

[vahidfar]

I think my options would be either Nikon 16-35mm f/4 or Tamron Tamron 15-30 F/2.8

Are you shooting with a full frame camera?

Yea, D750