So... I'm all but convinced that I'm going D800

Started 11 months ago | Discussions thread
Per Baekgaard
Contributing MemberPosts: 842Gear list
Like?
Re: So... I'm all but convinced that I'm going D800
In reply to Tyym, 11 months ago

Tyym wrote:

[...] but I really need a wide lens for the FX body.  I really don't know what to do.  I've been told to avoid the 14-24 because of the outer element.  The 16-35 was recommended an I'll consider it but I'm really wondering about a wide lens.  I absolutely love my Sigma 10-20 but of course, it's not FX!

10-20mm on DX is around 15-30mm on FX, so the 16-35mm would be close to that. The 14-24mm is wider (probably by more than what it sounds like).

Both are really good lenses, and have their individual strength and weaknesses. I would NOT recommend you skip the 14-24mm just because of the front element -- unless you're very casual with your gear and/or shoot in very muddy conditions, such as a motocross track up-close

The 16-35mm is quite versatile as a walk-around lens as it goes up all the way to 35mm. It also has VR, and you may not need f/2.8 that often for wide angle shots and landscapes (just remember VR does not help with movement in the picture, only on your handshaking).

The 14-24mm is a stellar UWA lens, but has a slightly smaller range and a might flare more easily in some conditions. For some (like myself) it is not an issue. It is wider and goes to f/2.8 and works well also for e.g. starscapes. It does not take polarizers, but then as mentioned, you may not want to use that to make the sky more blue for such wide angles.

Both are best at the middle of their ranges. If you shoot a lot towards the wide end (i.e. below 21mm), the 14-24mm is my pick. The 16-35mm is best in the range from about there up to 30mm and might also be slightly better around 24mm than the 14-24mm. The 14-24mm is no slouch at 24mm though; I still prefer that to the 24-70mm for that range. All of them improve by stopping down a little.

Both the WA can have some sample-to-sample variation -- I've seen examples of both with slight decentering (than can obviously be adjusted afterwards if needed), so good to check when you get it.

I had a similar challenge as you (I came from a 12-24mm on a D300), and ended up with the 14-24mm. I had initially decided on the 16-35mm but after testing both, I went with the 14-24mm as it -- to me -- had a bit more "pop" and I liked the wide range a lot. The only place where I now miss having the 16-35mm is for typical "urban landscape" shooting where I might want to only drag one lens along and hence the 14-24mm might be a little too wide. But then I just bring my old 35mm along as well (using it in its sweet spot between around f/5.6).

Some example shots (landscape "HDR" like one-shot in conditions with a lot of flare potential): http://b4net.dk/photos/RejserOgNatur/Soederaasen%20Efteraar%202012/index.html#20121020_PB8_3262.JPG and another one (magazine shot of a musician in backlight): http://b4net.dk/photos/Opgaver/Domino/Mikael%20Andreasen%20(Kloster)/index.html#PB8_0775.JPG

There are probably many more normal non-HDR/backlight shots in my galleries, and you can d/l the high-res to inspect if you want. Just wanted to show some examples that could be "difficult" to handle otherwise.

 Per Baekgaard's gear list:Per Baekgaard's gear list
Nikon D70 Nikon D200 Nikon D300 Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR +14 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