Reading mode: Light Dark

D4 + 14-24mm or 16-35mm?

Go to last post
JoshRtek

JoshRtek

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
410
Reaction score
49
Location
US
I've been happily putting my D4 through it's paces the past three weeks. Up until this weekend, I'd been practicing a strict policy of primes-only, but I let that slip to test my 28-300mm, and was pleased with the results.

Further, I finally sold my Nikon 10-24mm ultra wide angle zoom, the last piece of DX glass to go after my move to an FX-sized sensor.

I'm falling in love with the 24mm f/1.4G's field-of-view (as compared with the DX, though 36mm is a great focal length as well). However, I know it won't be long before I miss ultra-wides. The Nikon 10-24mm was probably the most utilized lens in my DX setup, and it will need replacing soon.

For Memorial Day weekend, I'm renting both the 14-24mm and the 16-35mm VR to see which I prefer. There are a lot of considerations: weight, VR or not, faster aperture or not, and also the ability to use filters.

I know a lot of these questions will be answered when I've got the two lenses in my hands, but I'm curious to know what everyone's opinions are on comparing the two lenses.

Is the extra weight of the 14-24mm a drag? I'm not necessarily concerned about not using filters. 16-35mm seems like an awesome walk-around range, while 14-24mm seems much less so. But f/2.8 freezes motion better than f/4 even with VR. What are your experiences like?
 
The 14-24mm was the best lens I never used.

Actually I did use mine and it was exceptional in IQ terms, but I just didn't like the fact that I couldn't use filters on it. Since I sold it Lee have bought out their filter solution for the 14-24mm but it is big, bulky, very expensive and there is no 10x ND available (yet).

I now shoot with the 16-35mm f/4 and I'm much happier with that. I'm able to use 100mm filters on it, it's lighter and stopped down it is also excellent IQ wise between 20mm to 28mm which is where I use it most often.

(Edit; I may be mis-quoting Thom as I can no longer find the article where he wrote the line above. However there are other references to this on other forums so I don't believe I imagined it)
 
I have the 14-24mm and I never think about the weight or size. It's a great lens. I know you said you were not that concerned about filters, but I did get the fotodiox filter mount the 14-24 so I could put a polo on it. It works as well as could be expected for a polo on that wide of lens and is well made but makes the lens a little large more my backpack and is very cumbersom to remove or install.
Tom C
 
I will put one more plug in for primes. I got the D4 and the 24-120 f4.0 as the walk around zoom. I add the 20 f2.8 D to the wide end for when I need ultra wide. It is so small and light, I hardly know I have it. gives me room to add to the long end. I just leave a CP mounted on it most of the time. works great for me. May not be your thing - and won't get you below 20.
 
I recently purchased a D3s and have the same exact question. I'm curious to see what others add.

I've used the 14-24 on a D300 and really loved the the lens. I mainly shoot motorsports, mostly motocross and fmx, and I really do think this lens would work fantastically for my needs in that department. However, I do enjoy shooting nature things as well and find that not being able to use an ND filter (without purchasing an entire system to use just one filter) is a bit of a drag. Enter the the 16-35, I don't mind if it's f/4, especially if it's compensated with VR, and it allows all the filters I use on my other lenses. It sounds like an automatic win to me. But I'm drawn to the 14-24 because of it's image quality and fantastic build, the extra 2mm wide would be nice just add a little more flexibility, and it's f/2.8 which is always nice.

They counter each other nicely enough for my needs that they're perfect for making a difficult decision.
--
Andy Kawa
http://www.andykawa.com
http://www.lpmotocross.com
 
Greetings,

I do not have experience using the 16-35. I have used my fathers 14-24 and really like its image quality but I found the exposure of the front element to be somewhat intimidating for my active lifestyle and the use of filters to be more complicated than I would like.

I am switching to FX and recently went through the process of debating these two lenses for myself and on the advice of a couple forum members here I ended up deciding to go with the 16-35 plus an ultra wide prime (sigma 14mm f2.8), and a set of ND filters for both. Total package cost about the same as the 14-24 alone. I was particularly interested in close minimum focus for macro like wide angle shots and the sigma should do well with that.

The 16-35 will likely get a lot of use as a general landscape lens and the sigma will easily fit in my bag for when I just have to get on my belly to shoot beetles, slugs, mushrooms, mosses and the like.
--
bob
 
Tough decision. I use the 14-24 because it fits my system - 14-24, 24-70, 70-200. But pro friends of mine use a 16-35, 50mm prime and 70-200 for nature. 16 is not wide enough for me for two situations:

1. Cityscapes and other urban photography. You often need to straighten/tilt photos and need extra room to crop. 2 mm extra on the wide end is quite nice.

2. Team shots in sports where I need to be close. Such as holding the camera above a bunch of players doing a team cheer before a game starts.

Otherwise, 14 mm does not do much else for me. But the 14-24 is amazingly sharp. There are not enough superlatives to describe it. On the down side, it replaced my DX 12-24. I definitely feel the weight increase in my bag. So much so that for urban settings the 24-70 will stay home and a 50mm prime will join me.
--
Steve
 
I use both lenses on the D800 and they are very different. On lower resolution cameras the 14-24 was supposed to be excellent corner to corner, while on the D800 it is showing softness in the extreme corners (this may not show on the D4). It is limited in its practicality (can't take standard filters, and the protruding unprotected front element).

The 16-35 f4 VR is not good throughout its full range - which is probably why it is sometimes criticized. Specifically soft corners below 20 and soft sides above 30, but between 20 and 30 it is very good. I find it to be sharper corner to corner than the 14-24 above 20 on the D800. For the part above 30, consider drilling a hole and inserting a screw to avoid exceeding 30. It also takes standard filters and allows for incredibly long handheld shots in low light which is very useful.

Below 20, it's probably not an ideal landscape lens where you would want sharpness corner to corner, but depends on your needs.

As far as quality, etc. they're both great.
 
I've used the 16-35 extensively on D700 & D3s. I sold it recently to buy a 14-24 and it shines on my D800. I quite liked the 16-35, the VR is immensely useful for small aperture, handheld shots. And it does take filters.

But ultimately, for what I do, larger apertures is a better fit. I have been a big fan of the 16-35 and would still have it if it weren't what the 14-24 provides. And it's what the 14-24 has that I need most often. I need really wide, f/2.8 more than I need VR, so the choice was logical for me. Weight isn't an issue. When I first picked up the 14-24, I made a mental note that it's a good weight but it's heft has been exaggerated by many. It balance's beautifully on a D3s and is a tad front heavy on an ungripped body. But not a big deal. Infact, because its shorter, i prefer the use of the 14-24 to the 16-35. Although lighter, the 16-35 is longer which imakes the lever effect seem equal between the two, but as I said, the 14-24 is more compact front to back. With the HDR features of the new cameras and and the DR, I find that I'm using filters less anyway.

If you are doing landscape only, I would suggest the 16-35. At f/5.6 & f/8 it would be hard to tell them apart, but then you have VR and filters. The bulk of my shooting is wedding/engagement with a little bit of landscape for myself and real estate to a lesser extent further. So for me that little bit extra resolving power, width, & speed won out over VR and better utility. I also have the 24-120 f/4 and primes, so for above 24mm, the 24-120 is better in the shared range vs 16-35.
JoshRtek said:
I've been happily putting my D4 through it's paces the past three weeks. Up until this weekend, I'd been practicing a strict policy of primes-only, but I let that slip to test my 28-300mm, and was pleased with the results.

Further, I finally sold my Nikon 10-24mm ultra wide angle zoom, the last piece of DX glass to go after my move to an FX-sized sensor.

I'm falling in love with the 24mm f/1.4G's field-of-view (as compared with the DX, though 36mm is a great focal length as well). However, I know it won't be long before I miss ultra-wides. The Nikon 10-24mm was probably the most utilized lens in my DX setup, and it will need replacing soon.

For Memorial Day weekend, I'm renting both the 14-24mm and the 16-35mm VR to see which I prefer. There are a lot of considerations: weight, VR or not, faster aperture or not, and also the ability to use filters.

I know a lot of these questions will be answered when I've got the two lenses in my hands, but I'm curious to know what everyone's opinions are on comparing the two lenses.

Is the extra weight of the 14-24mm a drag? I'm not necessarily concerned about not using filters. 16-35mm seems like an awesome walk-around range, while 14-24mm seems much less so. But f/2.8 freezes motion better than f/4 even with VR. What are your experiences like?
Click to expand...
--
"You're guaranteed to miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
 
This is a good insight for me, thanks for sharing! I share pretty much all of the same thoughts you pointed out. Like the size/weight exaggeration you mentioned, I also find that people seem to exaggerate their worries over the large front element. Be mindful of where your camera is and you will have no problem. I've shot motocross with a multitude of lenses, all of which inevitably end up covered in mud/dirt/dust/water. These lenses are tough and well built. With some care and cleaning I see no reason to fear using these lenses to their potential in risky situations, you won't be disappointed :)

Your post has me swayed back into the court of the 14-24. Still, my hangup is the use of ND filters for running water... Would be much simply addressed with the 16-35.
mgblack74 said:
I've used the 16-35 extensively on D700 & D3s. I sold it recently to buy a 14-24 and it shines on my D800. I quite liked the 16-35, the VR is immensely useful for small aperture, handheld shots. And it does take filters.

But ultimately, for what I do, larger apertures is a better fit. I have been a big fan of the 16-35 and would still have it if it weren't what the 14-24 provides. And it's what the 14-24 has that I need most often. I need really wide, f/2.8 more than I need VR, so the choice was logical for me. Weight isn't an issue. When I first picked up the 14-24, I made a mental note that it's a good weight but it's heft has been exaggerated by many. It balance's beautifully on a D3s and is a tad front heavy on an ungripped body. But not a big deal. Infact, because its shorter, i prefer the use of the 14-24 to the 16-35. Although lighter, the 16-35 is longer which imakes the lever effect seem equal between the two, but as I said, the 14-24 is more compact front to back. With the HDR features of the new cameras and and the DR, I find that I'm using filters less anyway.

If you are doing landscape only, I would suggest the 16-35. At f/5.6 & f/8 it would be hard to tell them apart, but then you have VR and filters. The bulk of my shooting is wedding/engagement with a little bit of landscape for myself and real estate to a lesser extent further. So for me that little bit extra resolving power, width, & speed won out over VR and better utility. I also have the 24-120 f/4 and primes, so for above 24mm, the 24-120 is better in the shared range vs 16-35.
Click to expand...
--
Andy Kawa
http://www.andykawa.com
http://www.lpmotocross.com
 
Thanks for this! I do shoot landscapes, but I rarely take the time to do it proper. I do own the 24mm f/1.4G, which might be my preferred lens for landscapes, as it's smaller and wide-enough for the scenes I like to capture.

I will primarily use an ultra-wide-zoom for people images... Specifically poorly lit bars, clubs, and music venues. There is the occasional risk of having that huge exposed element in an area crowded with people (some of them boozing). But I agree that there is no better way to freeze action than a large aperture.

I'm leaning towards the 14-24mm, but we'll see when they're both here for a rental!

Thanks again everyone for your comments and advice.
mgblack74 said:
I've used the 16-35 extensively on D700 & D3s. I sold it recently to buy a 14-24 and it shines on my D800. I quite liked the 16-35, the VR is immensely useful for small aperture, handheld shots. And it does take filters.

But ultimately, for what I do, larger apertures is a better fit. I have been a big fan of the 16-35 and would still have it if it weren't what the 14-24 provides. And it's what the 14-24 has that I need most often. I need really wide, f/2.8 more than I need VR, so the choice was logical for me. Weight isn't an issue. When I first picked up the 14-24, I made a mental note that it's a good weight but it's heft has been exaggerated by many. It balance's beautifully on a D3s and is a tad front heavy on an ungripped body. But not a big deal. Infact, because its shorter, i prefer the use of the 14-24 to the 16-35. Although lighter, the 16-35 is longer which imakes the lever effect seem equal between the two, but as I said, the 14-24 is more compact front to back. With the HDR features of the new cameras and and the DR, I find that I'm using filters less anyway.

If you are doing landscape only, I would suggest the 16-35. At f/5.6 & f/8 it would be hard to tell them apart, but then you have VR and filters. The bulk of my shooting is wedding/engagement with a little bit of landscape for myself and real estate to a lesser extent further. So for me that little bit extra resolving power, width, & speed won out over VR and better utility. I also have the 24-120 f/4 and primes, so for above 24mm, the 24-120 is better in the shared range vs 16-35.
JoshRtek said:
I've been happily putting my D4 through it's paces the past three weeks. Up until this weekend, I'd been practicing a strict policy of primes-only, but I let that slip to test my 28-300mm, and was pleased with the results.

Further, I finally sold my Nikon 10-24mm ultra wide angle zoom, the last piece of DX glass to go after my move to an FX-sized sensor.

I'm falling in love with the 24mm f/1.4G's field-of-view (as compared with the DX, though 36mm is a great focal length as well). However, I know it won't be long before I miss ultra-wides. The Nikon 10-24mm was probably the most utilized lens in my DX setup, and it will need replacing soon.

For Memorial Day weekend, I'm renting both the 14-24mm and the 16-35mm VR to see which I prefer. There are a lot of considerations: weight, VR or not, faster aperture or not, and also the ability to use filters.

I know a lot of these questions will be answered when I've got the two lenses in my hands, but I'm curious to know what everyone's opinions are on comparing the two lenses.

Is the extra weight of the 14-24mm a drag? I'm not necessarily concerned about not using filters. 16-35mm seems like an awesome walk-around range, while 14-24mm seems much less so. But f/2.8 freezes motion better than f/4 even with VR. What are your experiences like?
Click to expand...
--
"You're guaranteed to miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
Click to expand...
 
I use the same combo on a D700 and am happy with the versatility. What polarizer do you use? The one I use gives me a lot of vignetting.
 
I will try and remember to look when I get home from current bus trip. Did not take kit this time.
 
+1
Al Giordano said:
totally agree on the 16-35...VR helps in a pinch as well. I find this lens very sharp with great contrast and colors thanks to the nano coating.
Click to expand...
 
I have been using the 16-35mm on my D700 since January 2011 and have been very pleased with the results. I mainly use it for shooting landscapes in the 20-30mm range and found it to be very sharp. I use Polarizing and ND filters on it a lot which is also a plus. VR not a big deal for me since it's usually on a tripod.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top