Nikon 16-35 f4 VS 14-24 f2.8 VS 17-35 f2.8

Which would you choose?

  • Nikon 14-24mm f2.8

    Votes: 15 32.6%

  • Nikon 16-35mm f4

    Votes: 21 45.7%

  • Nikon 17-35mm f2.8

    Votes: 10 21.7%
  • Total voters
    46
grahamc

grahamc

Messages
2,321
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
Yes
Difficult choice.... I am not in a position to be able to buy 2 of the 3 so need to pick one.

All are great lenses...

Will be on a D3 body

Used to shoot a largish range, landscape, vehicles and starting to get into portrait and wedding.

I like the 14-24, but lack of filter options is an issue.

Thoughts, opinions, comments?

EDIT - for the week before Easter and the part of the week after, the missus and I are going to be travelling around Switzerland (since I work here) going down through Zug, Luzern and ending up in the Valais region. Going to try and climb the Eiger, see the Matterhorn and the "little canada" :) So need to make a decision on this lens by then :crowded:
 
Last edited:
I've had the 14-24 for a whole one day; this was back in its' early days, before Lee did their filter set for it. I took it back because of the lack of ability to put filters on it and went and got myself the 17-35, which is a nice bit of glass :thumbs:

I've since found that I am not too keen on these wideangles, and am much happier in the 35-200 mm range for my landscapes; but I still keep the 17-35, for just in case I may want to use it one day.

I guess, if I was going back all over again, at this time, I'd go with the 14-24 even though I've voted for the 17-35 :shrug:
 
Thanks for the info...

For some reason I am leaning towards the 17-35. 14-24 is ultra wide, so might be a bit too much.

Did not realise Lee did a filter kit for the 14-24, will have a look at that now.
 
I use my 14-24 on my D3s, and love it. My Lee filters kit is on back order for it:thumbs:
 
I had the 14-24mm and moved over to the 16-35mm. Very happy with the 16-35mm.

Kev.
 
im in this sort of predicament as well but between the 16-35 and 17-35 - i have no idea which to save up for! be interested to see what people have to say, because so far its very mixed... but from what i can see there wont be any disappointment with any.
 
thorton said:
im in this sort of predicament as well but between the 16-35 and 17-35 - i have no idea which to save up for! be interested to see what people have to say, because so far its very mixed... but from what i can see there wont be any disappointment with any.
Click to expand...

They are the lens choices I am down to. I think they are so close either would be fantastic. Gotten a good price for the 17-35. So think that is my choice....
 
I think, today, if the choice were either of the 16-35 f/4 or the 17-35 f/2.8; I'd go with the 16-35 f/4.

For landscape, you will mostly be using f/8 to f/11; so what's the point of the f/2.8? Sure, it's good to have that one extra stop, but with todays' DSLR and their amazing high-ISO capabilities, that one stop is easy mitigated by just increasing your ISO by one stop, unless you really want that shallower depth of field?

Also, the 16-35 has the nano crystals, making it great for shooting into the sun; it controls flare far better than the 17-35. Not forgetting the VR which means that you can shoot hand-held 3 stops slower than you'd be able to with the 17-35!

Basically, just think if you really need / want that extra one stop for shallower depth of field that the 17-35 offers. Sure it's an amazing lens, hence why it still holds its' value so well; but is it really needed?

I think the two options today would be the 16-35 vs. the 14-24. From these two I still think the 16-35 trumps for landscape.
 
Wail said:
I think, today, if the choice were either of the 16-35 f/4 or the 17-35 f/2.8; I'd go with the 16-35 f/4.

For landscape, you will mostly be using f/8 to f/11; so what's the point of the f/2.8? Sure, it's good to have that one extra stop, but with todays' DSLR and their amazing high-ISO capabilities, that one stop is easy mitigated by just increasing your ISO by one stop, unless you really want that shallower depth of field?

Also, the 16-35 has the nano crystals, making it great for shooting into the sun; it controls flare far better than the 17-35. Not forgetting the VR which means that you can shoot hand-held 3 stops slower than you'd be able to with the 17-35!

Basically, just think if you really need / want that extra one stop for shallower depth of field that the 17-35 offers. Sure it's an amazing lens, hence why it still holds its' value so well; but is it really needed?

I think the two options today would be the 16-35 vs. the 14-24. From these two I still think the 16-35 trumps for landscape.
Click to expand...

the major bonus for me on the 17-35 is the aperture ring, can use it on my film camera then. its a real hard choice lol
 
I have got a 14-24 and a 17-35.

For the landscape side of things, the 17-35 is where it's at (apart from maybe the 16-35) primarily due to the use of filters. Yes, Lee now do a filter kit for the 14-24 but this kit will only fit the 14-24, so if you want to use filters on, say, a 24-70 you will need to own two filter kits.

I use the 14-24 for motorsport use, ultra wide stuff around service areas and general pratting around but have found myself using the 17-35 more recently with a Circ-PL on now the weather is nicer. I personally think my 17-35 is sharper than the 14-24 too.

It's a touch decision, giving there are three lenses there which very few people are likely to have an experience of, all three at the same time.

If it was between the 14-24 and the 17-35, I'd go with the 17-35 (especially for landscape use) but the 17-35 and 16-35 are a different matter.


DB
 
Well I finally decided on the 17-35 last night and ordered it.

Reasoning... well I chose it over the 14-24 for the filters. I have already got a decent selection of filters and did not fancy going for another set. Considering the angles that I like to shoot, I also picked this lens because it gives a good range between wide and short zoom.

Reasoning as to why I chose it over the 16-35.... the extra couple of stops won it for me. Yes the D3 is awesomely capable with regards to high ISO use, but figured I might actually need it.

Should arrive in a couple of days, so really looking forward to it. Best arrive before I leave for Switzerland, as the weather in Switzerland is great!!!!
 
Richard Peters said:
Not sure if you've seen it or not but I wrote up my thoughts on the 16-35 and 14-24 HERE, if it helps in any way :)
Click to expand...

sadly too late and I chose the one you did not review, but still a cool review and some awesome astro photos there!!!

Have to love that the "vote" is dead even now, typical :D
 
Yeh!
You went for my vote... I think you will get on with it perfectly on the D3. The only time I've found the 14-24 worth the extra at the wide end is in indoor architectural work when it can give some untouchable results. Congratulations and I'm looking forward seeing some results posted up
 
Graham it would be interesting to hear how you got on with the 17-35.....
 
grahamc said:
Well I finally decided on the 17-35 last night and ordered it.

Reasoning... well I chose it over the 14-24 for the filters. I have already got a decent selection of filters and did not fancy going for another set. Considering the angles that I like to shoot, I also picked this lens because it gives a good range between wide and short zoom.

Reasoning as to why I chose it over the 16-35.... the extra couple of stops won it for me. Yes the D3 is awesomely capable with regards to high ISO use, but figured I might actually need it.

Should arrive in a couple of days, so really looking forward to it. Best arrive before I leave for Switzerland, as the weather in Switzerland is great!!!!
Click to expand...

Just found this thread- an excellent choice:)

The 14-24 is awesome and is one of the best lenses Nikon make and I have used/ owned one or two if my accountant is counting:suspect::lol:

There weren't many options when I got the 17-35 and since then with my investment in filters I can't really justify the 14-24. I suppose I could but I'm lazy:lol:. Either way, f2.8 or lower is always where it's at:). You wont be disappointed.
 
Dr_O said:
Just found this thread- an excellent choice:)

The 14-24 is awesome and is one of the best lenses Nikon make and I have used/ owned one or two if my accountant is counting:suspect::lol:

There weren't many options when I got the 17-35 and since then with my investment in filters I can't really justify the 14-24. I suppose I could but I'm lazy:lol:. Either way, f2.8 or lower is always where it's at:). You wont be disappointed.
Click to expand...

Been awhile since looking at this, but still loving this lens, heavy thing, but love it!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top