Nikon 14-24mm 2.8 Versus The Nikon 16-35mm F4 VR

TG.

TG.

Messages
6,644
Name
Tel
Edit My Images
No
Just wondering if anyone has had experience of using both of the above lenses and if so what are your thoughts, i hired the 14-24mm a while back to take on holiday and i found it stunningly sharp, some of the shots i got handheld were fantastic and i suffer from camera shake quite a bit, i've never picked up a 16-35mm so i don't know myself but now i've just been reading on Uncle Kens site that he rates the 16-35mm even a little sharper http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/16-35mm.htm i know a lot of the time we all take what ken say's with a pinch of salt, but sometimes he does make sense, one of the obvious advantages of the 16-35mm is the ability to take filters without having to buy a whole new filter system as in the case of the 14-24mm at a cost of over £200 +, so if you used both i would love to hear your thoughts/experiences of both, many thanks :)
 
TG. said:
Just wondering if anyone has had experience of using both of the above lenses and if so what are your thoughts, i hired the 14-24mm a while back to take on holiday and i found it stunningly sharp, some of the shots i got handheld were fantastic and i suffer from camera shake quite a bit, i've never picked up a 16-35mm so i don't know myself but now i've just been reading on Uncle Kens site that he rates the 16-35mm even a little sharper http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/16-35mm.htm i know a lot of the time we all take what ken say's with a pinch of salt, but sometimes he does make sense, one of the obvious advantages of the 16-35mm is the ability to take filters without having to buy a whole new filter system as in the case of the 14-24mm at a cost of over £200 +, so if you used both i would love to hear your thoughts/experiences of both, many thanks :)
Click to expand...

"Under test conditions"- what, like not taking the plastic cap off the 14-24?:LOL:
The 14-24 is sharper- I've shot with both though I currently have neither:(. We may not be talking night and day but if you want image perfection it's the one. The problem is the filters- if you already have a substantial investment in a system- having to shell out from scratch again is a tough one. The image quality and flexibility of f2.8 not to mention the extra width do weigh up nicely though. The 16-35 is great lens and there is not a lot in it- if VR is useful to you and you don't need f2.8 from a lens of this range I would buy it and not be worried that I was missing out with image quality that was going to make a difference in the real world. If you can justify the cost of the 14-24 and a new set of filters then it is a special lens. That probably doesn't help you- buy both:D
 
The 14-24 is so darned good it has hard core canon shooters running to their local photo store to buy adapters. While pondering about buying my canon 14mm, my friend allowed me to shoot with both Canon and Nikon offerings ,in the case of the nikon, via an adaptor. The Nikor 14-24 was so good, it had me weighting down my options for weeks. In the end my need to have full AF won the fight. But, the 14-24 wipes the flor with the canon offering every day of the week and twice on a Sunday.
 
I would guess the 16-35mm could potentially be sharper around 20-24mm as that's the really strong range of the lens although I'd say it would really be splitting hairs.

My experience owning the 16-35mm for a couple of years is that its without serious issues in the 18-28mm range, at 16mm it does suffer from some corner softness but importantly only the extreme corners, not a slow dropoff across the frame, distortion is quite high there as well. Beyond 28mm performance drops off a lot more, its never absolutely terrible but for landscape work I would consider it a 16-30ishmm lens.

As mentioned the real difference for me the combination of lower weight, easier filters and VR. It makes for both a better casual lens and IMHO one for the more mobile photographer,
 
Nikon have a new 20mm 1.8G on the way, and Tamron have a 15-35 2.8 with VC on the way too. Just a few more options to consider :) both FX of course.
 
Cagey75 said:
Nikon have a new 20mm 1.8G on the way, and Tamron have a 15-35 2.8 with VC on the way too. Just a few more options to consider :) both FX of course.
Click to expand...

The Tamron looks like no filter thread sadly, otherwise that's a very tempted spec list, I don't mind a weak 35mm setting on my 16-35mm but I wouldn't want to be without 28mm.
 
TG. said:
Just wondering if anyone has had experience of using both of the above lenses and if so what are your thoughts, i hired the 14-24mm a while back to take on holiday and i found it stunningly sharp, some of the shots i got handheld were fantastic and i suffer from camera shake quite a bit, i've never picked up a 16-35mm so i don't know myself but now i've just been reading on Uncle Kens site that he rates the 16-35mm even a little sharper http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/16-35mm.htm i know a lot of the time we all take what ken say's with a pinch of salt, but sometimes he does make sense, one of the obvious advantages of the 16-35mm is the ability to take filters without having to buy a whole new filter system as in the case of the 14-24mm at a cost of over £200 +, so if you used both i would love to hear your thoughts/experiences of both, many thanks :)
Click to expand...

14-24 is better optically but the downside is the filter system. If you are on a tighter budget you can't go wrong with a 16-35.
 
Owned both of them when I shot with Nikon. The only two reasons I sold the F2.8 to replace it with the F4 are mainly weight and then filters. If these two are not a problem then by all mean go for the F2.8, an amazing lens
 
Moreorless said:
The Tamron looks like no filter thread sadly, otherwise that's a very tempted spec list, I don't mind a weak 35mm setting on my 16-35mm but I wouldn't want to be without 28mm.
Click to expand...

That sounds like a terrible omission! I can't think why they would do that?
 
I'd imagine getting a 15mm lens at f/2.8 in a zoom means you need a bigger element than a front filter thread would be practical.
 
The tamron has quite a 'bulbous' front element, judging on the one pic I've seen of it. You'll have to use external filter sets, like you would with the 14-24

Tamron_15-30mmVCUSD_A012.jpg


Can just make it out there, popping up over the hood
 
Last edited:
I've owned both.
The 14-24 is excellent but I never got on with it much. That front lens loves to flare and filters are a major/expensive PITA with it. Sold it and bought the 16-35 and I'm happy with it. I *also* bought the Sigma 12-24 for the really wide shots... I'm not too concerned with lens distortion and corner performance with those kinds of shots (I'm not shooting architecture with them).

You can buy both of them for ~ the cost of the 14-24. Probably even less in a used price comparison.

Ultimate maximum IQ? I don't really care that much. An image isn't about pixel peeping...
I chose adequate IQ and usability to accomplish what I want/need.
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
I've owned both.
The 14-24 is excellent but I never got on with it much. That front lens loves to flare and filters are a major/expensive PITA with it. Sold it and bought the 16-35 and I'm happy with it. I *also* bought the Sigma 12-24 for the really wide shots... I'm not too concerned with lens distortion and corner performance with those kinds of shots (I'm not shooting architecture with them).

You can buy both of them for ~ the cost of the 14-24. Probably even less in a used price comparison.

Ultimate maximum IQ? I don't really care that much. An image isn't about pixel peeping...
I chose adequate IQ and usability to accomplish what I want/need.
Click to expand...


That was my approach when deciding on an UWA, I could have had either but I bought the 16-35 - usability is ultimately more important that the best possible IQ. And to be fair, my 16-35 is no slouch, sharpness is excellent and it is nearly impossible to get it to flare or ghost which is perfect for landscape photography.
 
I've used, and owned both. The 14-24 is definitely the better of the two lenses. At the wide end it's stunning. Better than most Nikon primes. The 16-35 is a very good lens, but out of the two the 12-24 is without a doubt the sharper lens. It can't easily accept filters though, and any filter holders you have will not fit. If that's an issue, it pretty much rules it out.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I've used, and owned both. The 14-24 is definitely the better of the two lenses. At the wide end it's stunning. Better than most Nikon primes. The 16-35 is a very good lens, but out of the two the 12-24 is without a doubt the sharper lens. It can't easily accept filters though, and any filter holders you have will not fit. If that's an issue, it pretty much rules it out.
Click to expand...

Out of interest David, have you tried many UWA primes? I'm pondering one for travelling (to go with 28-300) but there don't seem to be many options (interested in the new 20 f/1.8 though) so my have to lug the 16-35 about.
 
Never got on with the 14-24, terrible flare, big old nose on it and no filters without major extra expense, tack tharp though, always went back to the 16-35 f4 VR
 
Nawty said:
Out of interest David, have you tried many UWA primes? I'm pondering one for travelling (to go with 28-300) but there don't seem to be many options (interested in the new 20 f/1.8 though) so my have to lug the 16-35 about.
Click to expand...

Not many primes no. I have the Nikkor 14mm f2.8D.... which is utter crap BTW... Makes a great paperweight, but seriously.. don't bother. I have the older Nikkor 20mm f2.8D which is OK... not stellar.. but OK. To be honest, the 14-24 is just so good I have never bothered. Gary has a point regarding flare. That bulbous front element needs treating with care. Light coming in from the side needs flagging off with your hand, or by an assistant if you can't manage yourself, otherwise you'll get the odd coloured blob of flare here and there. Easily retouched, but still something best avoided.

The Nikkor 24mm f1.4G is extremely good... not really UWA though.

Obviously not got my hands on the new 20mm yet. We've got 5 on pre-order though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top