14-24 vs 16-35

Started 11 months ago | Discussions thread
GregWCIL
Regular MemberPosts: 162
Like?
Re: 14-24 vs 16-35
In reply to razor123, 11 months ago

razor123 wrote:

I'm about to buy one of the above Nikkor lenses. Both seem excellent. Most of my photography is travel so I like the reach of the 16-35 and the VR. 14-24 seems like it will be a bit bulky to lug around. On the other hand, the 14-24 seems to be superior optically with less distortion. So I have to weigh between portability and optical quality. The difference in cost is not a factor in my decision. Which would you choose?

I can't speak about the 14-24, but I can explain why I chose the 16-35.

First, I wasn't concerned about distortion. I run 100% of my shots through Lightroom and it corrects any barrel distortion. I can't really imagine someone buying this quality equipment and not post processing.

Filters were a high priority for me. I often use a circular polarizer. There is no substitute in post-processing for the clarity and depth of colors it sometimes creates. I haven't done much yet with Neutral Density filters or graduated ND filters, but they often are used with a wide angle for landscape shots.

I use the 16-35 more than any other lens I have. And the VR lets me shoot indoors with natural light--better I think than with my 50 mm 1.8.

Maybe if I had the 14-24, I'd be singing it's praises. One thing I have found out: I use the wide end of the lens by far the most. Maybe I'd like the extra width of the 14mm even more.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow