About to buy a wide angle lens.

markyboy.1967

markyboy.1967

Messages
8,171
Name
Mark Molloy
Edit My Images
Yes
In the next few weeks I will be buying a new lens but I'm still a bit undecided on which one. My choices are Nikon 14-24,16-35 or the 17-35.

The 14-24 would mean changing my filter system but I believe its a fantastic lens.the 16-35 is the cheapest but is also an f4 lens where the others are f2.8. The 17-35 interests me and Is the most expensive also the one I know least about.

It would be mostly for landscapes but will be used for stars and night photograph hence a bit more leaning towards the f2.8. I have filters which I use quite bit when out so that puts the 14-24 at a disadvantage unless I can be convinced otherwise.

The lens will be used on the D700 and D810

So what would you buy in my situation?
 
Not sure why the 17-35 is the most expensive, it's the oldest. When I was in your situation it was a straight decision between the 14-24 and the 16-35 and I went with the 16-35 as it is smaller (still fairly hefty though) and it has VR which is more important to me than a stop faster aperture. I've read mixed online reviews of the 16-35 but I love mine - it's super sharp across the frame, even wide open and most people who actually own the lens seems to concur.
 
I was in your situation and went for the 16-35. Cheaper, lighter and takes filters (more easily). Was tempted by the 14-24 but couldn't justify it!
 
The 16-35 is a big old lump, but I really like it so I'd recommend that one. If only for the fact you don't need to buy new Lee filters as you have an existing collection.
 
Get the 16-35. Ok so it's F4. But I rarely use it wide open. The VR is the real star here. For handheld stuff it'll blow the other two away. And of course you can use filters. The 17-35 is an old lens, and I do love older "D" lenses, but the newer G's really are better. Sharper and more contrasty.
Like all WA zooms it'll live at the 16mm end. Love mine, currently been usurped by my Sigma 35 1.4 Art though as my favourite lens.
 
About three years ago I asked the very same question on this forum. At the time I hadn't even heard of the 16-35 f4 VR until it was recommended on here.
I think it had only just come out. I bought one and have never regretted it. I have found the VR very useful when taking indoor shots in churches and museums.
I can get sharp pics. at very slow shutter speeds shooting hand held.
 
Im happy with my tokina 11-16mm - extreme wide, F2.8, on crop sensor great, on FF works ok at 15mm-16mm, lots of vignetting below 15mm on FF though but 15mm is wide enough without going fisheye anyway
 
ST4 said:
Ziess 21mm is another option. I've never wanted wider for landscapes. Super sharp
Click to expand...

incidentally it is called ZEISS.

Good choice but it can be limiting at times
 
markyboy.1967 said:
21mm is a bit close to the 24-70 i have hence looking for a bit wider. Thanks.
Click to expand...

You'll be surprised, 24mm is pretty wide, and the 21mm is quite a bit wider. I too have a 24-70, belting lens. I've heard a 16/17-35 is a step down in sharpness. a 14-24 and buy the expensive filter system from Lee is another option and I nearly did that but went with ziess and have no regrets.

Lee 14-24 filter system SW150

http://www.leefilters.com/index.php/camera/system-sw150
 
Last edited:
Thanks Steve. The 14-24 by all accounts is superb and would fit in with my other lenses very well ( 24-70,70-200 and a few longer lenses)but is it so much better than the 16-35? I'm just trying to pick up landscapes when I'm out and about and found myself enjoying it and the 16-35 would meet all my needs except maybe the star/Milky Way type shots where a low f number on a wide angle suits best but as mentioned there is always the samyang if I feel the 16-35 isn't suitable.
 
16-35 is a fine lens, but if I had a 24-70 (which I do) I'd want similar optical performance wider on, which the 14-24 gives. Thats not to say the 16-35 is a bad lens, far from it, but the 14-24 would be better and its a constant F2.8 not F4

TBH, I've shot a lot of landscapes with my 24-70. Its a great lens and plenty wide enough for a lot of scenes. Not ideal for astro as too long.

I'd think about the 14-24 and Lee system I posted. Or try a Ziess 21mm and use your 100mm. WHere are you based, I could let you try my Ziess out?
 
Last edited:
Steve, im just outside Glasgow. I have no doubt that the Zeiss is superb as i have a pair of their binoculars and the quality is superb. I havent ruled out the 14-24 as it would give me the " Holy Trinity" lol. I just need to decide if i want to invest in the lens and then the filter system and how much benefit i would get over the 16-35 and my current filters.
 
I'm in Helensburgh/Glasgow -pm me if you want to try the lens on a D800 or better still give me a lift up Glencoe sometime as I am presently without wheels, and you can see it in the field there and shoot with it.

http://fineartamerica.com/featured/the-buachaille-stephen-taylor.html

I find it wide enough for shooting up there to be honest, its lovely.
 
16-35mm, superb and certainally not a poor mans 14-24mm, every bit as sharp (ive owned several copies of both) 2mm less wide but an extra 11mm at the long end, add to thet VR, £500 cheaper, easy and cheap 77mm filters, OK its not f/2.8 but for landscapes you would be stopping to f/11 anyway
 
Just to update this thread. I have now done a deal and bought myself a lovely Nikon 14-24 f2.8 lens.I just now need to look at changing my filter system over and keep the 24-70 I have for the Lee big stopper as there isn't one available for the 14-24...Cant wait to get my Holy Trinity together.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top