Reading mode: Light Dark

14-24 mm vs 16-35 mm

Go to last post
Dennis2958 said:
Don't forget the VR on the 16-35mm. I have owned both and the 16-35mm is my favorite by far for all of the reasons mentioned in other posts.

I must have a good copy (bought it less than a month ago) as I find it as sharp as the 14-24mm...
Click to expand...
I like my 14-24 but at times feel it is useless in capturing what I want without the use of grads. I look at the bulk and expense of the Hitech and Lee and may just add the 16-35 or primes to my inventory. Great that you are pleased with yours.
 
D L Miller said:
Thanks for all the input. Yesterday, I had the 14-24mm on my camera at the camera store. I took some photos and they were all super sharp. The fact you can't use filters made me double think about the lens. I have never scratched a lens, but without any protection I would hate to have this be the first one...
Click to expand...
You may be overly concerned. I will place the cap over mine when moving from one scene to the other which is no big deal. Screw on filters can be found but it takes placing on an adaptor and then its bulk on bulk.
D L Miller said:
Dennis your response put me over the top to get the 16-35mm....
Click to expand...
Me as well but I still need to consider primes. That's all I used in MF film. I have gotten spoiled with zooms with my D700. D800 is another concern similar to my MF stuff.
D L Miller said:
Unless there is a big flaw in my thinking,
Click to expand...
I certainly can't think of it. Enjoy.
 
Dennis2958 said:
Dennis2958 said:
Steer me straight. Why would anyone buy an expensive f2 lens if he is not going to use it at f2? >
Click to expand...
If nothing else the view finder screen is brighter. I remember owning a 50mm 1.4 lens just so I could hand focus in darker situations, not to shoot it at 1.4 but perhaps with a flash. I am talking the "old" days.
Click to expand...
The brighter screen is a benefit, but I don't buy fast lens for that reason. :)
 
me either. just giving you a different answer to your question.
 
Even though everyone's hand is different regarding shaking, I found out that VR is not so useful on wide angle.
--
Austin

Photography is one of the ways to get myself relaxed from occupation stress.
 
Dennis2958 said:
Think "VR"................ remember how many stops of hand holding it's worth. 2.8 to f 4.0 is nothing in today's world of high iso's and VR.
Click to expand...
One thing I noticed fast between shooting f/4 and f/2.8 lenses is the out of focus areas (bokeh). There's often a quite noticeable difference when grass, trees, or various foliage is in the background. At f/4 the background isn't as smooth no matter which lens you're shooting (16-35 vs. 17-35 (Nikon), 24-70 vs. 24-105 (Canon), or comparing a 300 f/4 to a 2.8 version).

I like having VR, but it isn't a replacement for f/2.8

Remember, shoot a fast and slow lens side by side and guess what?

You can always get the same results that a VR lens can give you shooting a f/2.8 lens by using a monopod/tripod (sometimes this can't be done and that's when VR earns its keep).

However, you cannot get f/2.8 results with an f/4 lens no matter how hard you try.

;)

I love having VR at my disposal on long glass, and wish I had it on my wide angle lenses, however there is no way I'd sacrifice lens speed for VR in most cases as I'd be giving up too much.
--
Teila K. Day
http://www.teiladay.com
 
I have come to the conclusion, for myself only, that I need both. Each has it's pros and cons. I currently have the 14-24, and WOW is all I can say. Down the road, I'll be getting the 16-35, perhaps used by someone that can't find proper usage for it.
D L Miller said:
Which one to buy. I plan on using it with my D4. I love the 2.8f on the 14-24 mm but I see it is an accident waiting to happen. Without filter protection I know I'll scratch the lens. But if it is totally superior to the 16-35mm i guess I'll take the gamble.
Not being able to use "screw on filters" could also be a pain.

With a D4 I know I can get by with a f4 lens, but is the benefits of the 14mm f2 worth it??
Has any one used both and can give some direction as to what to do???
--
D2x / D4 SHOOTER
Click to expand...
 
D L Miller said:
Which one to buy. I plan on using it with my D4. I love the 2.8f on the 14-24 mm but I see it is an accident waiting to happen. Without filter protection I know I'll scratch the lens. But if it is totally superior to the 16-35mm i guess I'll take the gamble.
Not being able to use "screw on filters" could also be a pain.

With a D4 I know I can get by with a f4 lens, but is the benefits of the 14mm f2 worth it??
Has any one used both and can give some direction as to what to do???
--
D2x / D4 SHOOTER
Click to expand...
I have both of these lenses, but I feel they are really for different purposes.

I always take my 16-35 f4 VR when travelling as it is much more useful due to VR, filter ability, lack of flare issues, zoom range and less prone to getting the front element damaged by the bustle of touristy places. The overlap with my 24-70 is very beneficial!
  • The VR is a Godsend when you are inside churches/cathedrals, castles and buildings where you can't use a tripod or haven't taken one with you (as you are on holidays!). It's amazing how useful VR is! ALso, if you are on holidays and don't have, or want to take a fast lens for low light, then the 16-35 VR is the only real lens option that allows low light photography as the 24-70 does not have VR.
  • If you want to use a polariser, then the 16-35 is obvioulsy a better option, but also, a ND grad set up is much smaller to take on holidays than that for the 14-24.
  • Flare can sometimes raise it's ugly head with the 14-24. Take a scenario where you are travelling and at a particular breathtaking photo opportunity, but flare is hindering you getting a particular photo or photos using the 14-24, the trouble is that you are usually unable to come back to when the light is right due to time constraints of travel. The 16-35 will have much less problem with this.
  • Zoom range is better for when you don't have time, due to travel constraints, to swap out your lens.
  • Whenever I have the 14-24 on the camera in a crowded area, I am forever being paranoid that someone will bump into the front element of the lens.
However, the 14-24 is a tad sharper and the overall IQ seems a bit nicer, slightly more contrast, and it is this lens that I use for where I can control the conditions or for when I can choose when to take photos, where I have a tripod if needed, or where I am able to take my Lee ND filter set up. It is usually the lens I have in my bag for local expiditions, but not always.
--
Lance B
http://www.pbase.com/lance_b

 
Lance B

Thanks for your response. It hit the question I was asking. I am buying the 16-35 because I will use it for travel and I can always get the 14-24mm later if I find the 16-35mm does not fit the bill.. Plus the use of filters is a big factor for me. This lens plus my 24-120mm will be great travel lens combo... Can't believe what I am saying... I have always been a "fast lens" guy.....

Thanks again for all the replies....
Special thanks to Dennis too.....
--
D2x / D4 shooter
 
D L Miller said:
Lance B

Thanks for your response. It hit the question I was asking. I am buying the 16-35 because I will use it for travel and I can always get the 14-24mm later if I find the 16-35mm does not fit the bill.. Plus the use of filters is a big factor for me. This lens plus my 24-120mm will be great travel lens combo... Can't believe what I am saying... I have always been a "fast lens" guy.....
Click to expand...
My style is to walk around and take pictures of things. Sometimes I have a plan/subject in mind...but often I'm just out there seeing what I can find. When I do this kind of photography, I take one of three lens. The 24-120mm f4, the 50mm f1.8 (bars with people lens :) ) or the 16-35mm f4. For that kind of shooting, those three really are fun, worthwhile, and plenty of IQ in flexible packages. When I go out with just the 50mm though, I'm in a certain mood. Good Luck and enjoy.
 


I used my 14-24mm on a D3 and a D3X until the lens got stolen (ouch!). Impressive lens indeed, for both landscape, photojournalism as well as for wedding. It took me a while to consider a valid replacement for this pretty cumbersome and heavy piece of glass (my only complaint).

I eventually decided for the 16-35 which gives me a wider focal range for a lighter weight. Took it on a mountain hike last week and it really convinced me that it was the right choice. Much lighter to carry around, the possibility to use filters (polaroid filter in this particular case) and excellent quality on D800 (at f/8).

For sure there'll come a day when I'll miss the 14-24mm, but I think those days will be few.
--
Michel Bricteux
 
The 14-24 is visibly sharper at 20mm and below. About the same at 24. Of course, the 16-35 is far superior above 24 =:-)

Another consideration - the 16-35 has almost unbelievable levels of distortion (primarily barrel distortion, but some complex second order effects too), and vignetting is pretty bad as well. True, distortion and vignetting are easy to correct in software these days, but this correction is not without cost - higher noise in corners, and a slight reduction in acuity due to the resampling needed to fix the distortion.

I thought the VR would be a big plus, but that hasn't proven to be the case for me. I do miss the ease of using variable ND filters on the 14-24, but that's all I miss. And using a polarizer on such wide lenses causes more visual problems than it solves, i.e dramatic exposure differences across the frame.
 
Interesting picture. I've only approached the waterfall from the valley below, but it is a very impressive location which I hope to visit again one day.

Fred
 
Lance B said:
However, the 14-24 is a tad sharper and the overall IQ seems a bit nicer, slightly more contrast, and it is this lens that I use for where I can control the conditions or for when I can choose when to take photos, where I have a tripod if needed, or where I am able to take my Lee ND filter set up.
Click to expand...
Since you have the Lee for the 14~24 do you also have a reverse grad and if so which one? The Lee kit comes with a hard edge. Which do you use more the hard or soft? Also did you check out Hitech. From viewing I see their gradation goes by steps, like three solid shades which I would think would show at stopping down.

Thanks for any help.
 
PhotoBabble said:
I thought the VR would be a big plus, but that hasn't proven to be the case for me. I do miss the ease of using variable ND filters on the 14-24, but that's all I miss...
Click to expand...
I'm curious as to why you haven't invested in the available options for using ND grads for it. Too bulky and expensive? The only reason I have considered the 16~35 is for the ease of using the ND's. Your impressions of it has me thinking I should just deal with the bulk.

Thanks,
 
In my 16-35 experience the "unbelievable" distortion only happens below 20mm. Seems the lens is best between 20 and 30mm, and I find it very good in that range, often outstanding. I do not own the 14-24 for comparison.

Ozzie
 
The 14-24 is a gorgeous piece of glass.

Heavy, beautifully constructed.

I've had one for a couple of years, and have never once looked back. Have also never had any negative experience with the exposed front element.

Sharp, great color rendition, minimal distortion. Decades ago, I had a 20, believe it was an f4. The 14 yields a far more useable image.

Great investment.
 
John M Roberts said:
Teila Day said:
However, you cannot get f/2.8 results with an f/4 lens no matter how hard you try.
Click to expand...
Is there any reasonable option in PP to resemble the results with more simplified compositions?
Click to expand...
The correct answer is "yes", because in some simple compositions there will always be a way to mimic a ND filter, Circular Polarizer, or in this case a faster aperture.... however most of the time, such cannot be done reasonably in post. Not by a long shot as it takes too much time and the result is typically unnatural.

Some plug-ins make a go of it, but often the result is about as natural as people using gaussian blur on a woman's face. ;)
--
Teila K. Day
http://www.teiladay.com
 
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