14-24 vs 16-35

Started May 5, 2013 | Discussions thread
jsr4522 Regular Member • Posts: 111
Re: 14-24 vs 16-35

When I was debating this purchase I demoed both and found that the 14-24 is a great 14-20ish lens and the 16-35 is a great 20-30ish lens.  I do some ultra wide landscapes/seascapes and found the 14-24 to be better for my style of shooting.  Love the way you can emphasize foreground elements with this lens - makes a small field of flowers looks like it goes on forever.  I also prefer f/2.8 for some night shooting and astrophotography.  Lack of filters was not an issue for me.  The lee filter for the 14-24 is expensive.  If I need a filter, I will use the 24-70 or 24 f/1.4 with a neutral density to slow the movement of the water.  If I need to go ultrawide with a filter, I will stitch a few images together.  For me it came down to the optical quality and added creativity afforded by 14-24 being the deciding factor.

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?

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow