Nikon 14-24mm, worth upgrading over Nikon 16-35?

Started Apr 1, 2013 | Discussions thread
jsr4522 Regular Member • Posts: 110
Re: Nikon 14-24mm, worth upgrading over Nikon 16-35?

mfahim27753 wrote:

Hello everyone,

Hope you are all well, and enjoying the Easter weekend.

I myself, am thinking whether I should upgrade my UWA lens or not. I currently have a Nikon 16-35mm f/4.0 VR. I have heard that the 14-24mm is phenomenal and was wondering if I should get it. Those of you who have this lens or have used both, please advise on the questions. I'd really appreciate some help.

I mostly shoot at f8, ISO 100, and let the camera decide the shutter speed, but I keep an eye on it. When needed, I either use higher ISO or I lower it to f6.3 or something. Now my stupid questions are:

1. How useful is the VR in UWA lens? Can I use for example f/4 on 14-24 and get same or better sharpness compare to using 16-35 at f/8? Reason is to compensate VR and get faster shutter speed at f4 with 14-24 than the 16-35.

2. Flare & Filter. How bad is the flare and is there any filter available to protect the lens? I don't really wanna spend money on Lee SW150, at least not anytime soon.

Many thanks, appreciate your advise.

In response to your specific questions:

1. Personally I have not found VR to be that useful/necessary on my UWAs b/c I use them to shoot  starscapes/landscapes from a tripod.  If I were doing more street photography or handholding in low light, then it would be a different story.

2. Flare - if you shoot facing the sun there will be flare whether you use the 16-35 or the 14-24. For the 14-24, I can somewhat manage flare with the lenscoat rain hood when not shooting directly into the sun.  In comparing the 2 lenses  - both exhibited flare under the same conditions.  When possible, I will plan my shots so that direct sunlight is not an issue.

Filters - I have the lee system.  Yes its expensive and it takes time to set up.  Is it ideal - no.  Does it serve the purpose when I want to use NDs - yes.  If I want a polarizer, I reach for my 24-70. Personally I find the 14-24 gets it right in the camera in the 16-20 range where as the 16-35 requires more post processing adjustments in this range.  Hence I will deal with the filters in this circumstance.

With these lenses its all a question of what is your intended use.  I love the 14-24 wide open for photographing the stars and milk way or when I want to really emphasize/exaggerate foreground elements or the sky in a landscape. It sees the most use in the 14-20 range.  At 24mm there are better options (including the 16-35).

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