14-24 vs 16-35

Started May 5, 2013 | Discussions thread
vaxn8r Regular Member • Posts: 405
Re: 14-24 vs 16-35

16-35 cons: physically longer than it seems it ought to be. Distortion at low end. 30-35 is not inspiring....Ok it's bad. But 16-20 is not bad at all for landscape, it's actually very good IMO. So it's kind of a 16-30 IMO. F4 is slow. If you need this for people indoors plan on a flash. Build quality is very good but feels a step below the 14-24. (still it seems rugged enough)

14-24 cons: lens cap does not click on, IMO a design flaw and I always worry about losing it. It's heavy and bulky with big glass protrusion (suprisingly it balances nicely on my D700). It's serious lens that doesn't fit into (my) camera bags without removing everything else. It may weigh less than the 70-200 2.8 but in some ways far more awkard to take with you, either alking around attached or in a bag. Flare is a much bigger issue than you might think. You'll find it ruins more shots than you thought it possibly could when you get back to post process. It has a lot of distortion, not as much as the 16-35 but almost. Don't think you aren't going to have to deal with it if you have edges in your photo. F2.8 is only one stop faster than the 16-35. It's fast for a zoom but still 2 stops slower than your primes, you still probably need a flash for low light people photography if you can't crank up  the ISO enough. This isn't really a con of this lens, but if you haven't shot much at 14mm, it's really hard to do this well. I know I don't, but I enjoy trying.

16-35 pros: It is a very good lens. Maybe not great but I am continually surprised how good it is. It certainly does not deserve the hate it gets around here. I like shooting long exposures so the ability to accept filters is a huge bonus. For indoor museums and churches it is far superior to the 14-24 and even a fast 1.4 prime stopped down, where not only have you lost all DOF but are shooting the prime at it's weakest aperture.

14-24 pros: stunning output, when you can take extra time to set up your shot, check for any and all flare, and don't have to carry a lot of stuff around. I just would not use this as a lens to walk around with, and I actually do that with the 70-200 at times. It is wicked fun to use IMO. it would also be fun to use with filter systems and long exposures but I have not invested in those systems or used it this way.

They really shine at different things. Ultimately I find the 16-35 hits more of my checkboxes so if I had to have one that would be it, but the truth is you could certainly justify having both.

 vaxn8r's gear list:vaxn8r's gear list
Canon PowerShot S95 Sony RX100 Nikon D700 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm F4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.4G +7 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow