D610 and 14-24 or D800e 16-35

For me the 14-24, even if it is a superb lens, is not suitable for landscape.

2 reasons :

Not possible to put filters

Vert prone to flare according to photozone, see


I would go for the 16-85, knowing that you'll have to stop it down at f8 or f11 to have even resolution across the frame.

Regards

For me the choice would be the D800e with the 18-35mm f3.5G. You lose some field of view with the 18mm as compared to 16mm but the image quality is slightly better with the 18-35mm lens and you save money.

I own the 14-24mm lens and the D800e and I tested the 16-35mm f4 lens alongside the 14-24mm and the difference was too great so I stayed with the 14-24mm lens. I was hoping prior to the testing that the difference would be slight and I could go to a much smaller and much lighter lens and one that would work with my screw on filters and filter adapters and provide a much greater zoom focal length range. No such luck.

The 18-35mm f3.5G lens became my lighter and smaller ultra wide angle zoom and it uses the standard 77mm size filters. I bought it to have along with the 14-24mm f2.8.

When I look at a used low shutter count D800e for $1600 and a new 18-35mm f3.5G lens selling for $750 for a total cost of $2350, I see a fantastic value at bargain prices capable of extremely high quality images.

The D800e is a pro level camera and the controls and layout and build quality are a step above that of the D610 which is an entry level full frame camera. I see the difference with my D750 which is much like the D610 and the D7100/D7200 cameras.

I do think that a new D610 at $1500 is a great deal and provides the most camera for your dollar of any current Nikon camera.

Over the years I have owned Nikon pro level cameras including the D1x, D2x, D2h, D100/200/300, D800e, and the D810, but the only lenses that I have sold have been the 17-35mm f2.8 and the 17-55mm f2.8 and Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 when moving from crop to full frame cameras. I have many lenses that I used with my Nikon film bodies when I switched to Nikon in 1988. Lenses last virtually forever with proper care and storage when not in use.

Cameras change every 2-3 years and are much less of a long term investment so I would advise against downgrading a lens purchase to get a more expensive camera. There is also no reason to not buy a pro Nikon lens on the used market if you are buying it from its owner directly and it is someone you can trust - i.e. on eBay it is very much buyer beware and I avoid this market entirely.

Very useful advice. I'm leaning towards the D800e and 18-35. Seems to be a great value and would allow me to invest in a better tripod and a tablet for processing.

The 14-24 might be a purchase sometime in the future.

14-24 with the cheaper body.

Fine lenses are long term relationships, but bodies are summer flings.

I personally would recommend the 16-35F4. It's very sharp in center at f4. It's not so much that the corners are bad but it's just the field curvature that the lens has.

Make sure you buy locally as there seems to be sample variations with this lens. My first copy was centered. My second copy was very sharp edge to edge with corners cleaning up nicely by time I use f5.6-8 and by f11 it's pretty much sharp edge to edge for most of the range of the lens with the only weakness being at mm where stopping down doesn't improve edge sharpness much.

The advantage you get with the 16-35 over the18-35 is the extra fov and the vr which can help when you don't have a stable platform.

Just make sure you have a good copy and you'll be good to go. With this you'll at least be able to use filters easily which is important to me as I'll use nd filters for my waterfall pics.

If filter usage is not important, the 15-35 from tamron gives both the 14-24 and 16-35 a good run for the money!

For about the same $$$ i will go with d800e + 18-35 + square filter set up.

I have downgraded from 1424 to 1635 to 1835 road. I am very happy with it, exception, in rare occasion i wish to have wider option. It never once due to IQ.

mattymeis said:

Hi guys,

Have read through so many posts and seriously cannot make a choice.

Brief background, I almost exclusively shoot landscapes and get inspiration from Ryan Dyar, Miles Morgan, Chip, etc. Not super talented in processing, but definitely know what I'm doing in terms of blending, masks, localized adjustments.

So, I was almost settled on a used D800e and a 16-35 f4.

Read so many mixed reviews and eventually started to look at the new Nikon 18-35. I read so much and everything started to sway towards the 18-35 being a great landscape lens and outperforming the 16-35, while others say it's cheap and not as good.

Got so confused and eventually considered a refurb D610 with a used 14-24.

Any insight at all, can't afford a used D800e with the 14-24, can afford a used D800e with a used 16-35 or new 18-35.

Was also thinking about buying a new 16-35 for the warranty in case I'd get one of the 'bad'' copies (always mentioned when the 16-35 is referenced). I'm heading to Iceland in about 2 weeks though so getting a quality lens the first time would be important, though I could always send it back.

Any help is much appreciated, just cannot decide and getting worn out from reading so many back and forth threads.

Thank you.

Click to expand...

I have the 16-35 F4, and never liked the sharpness or contrast, all i can compare it to is My AFs 24-70 G and AFS 28 1.8 G, Before my last trip, I had Nikon clean, adjust, and check it out for focus, it didn't help at all.

If I could do it over, I would buy the 14-24.

Bunza said:

14-24 with the cheaper body.

Fine lenses are long term relationships, but bodies are summer flings.

Click to expand...

I completely share this point of view. I have the D610 and a good copy of the 14-24. It's a magnificent lens and you will not be disappointed. Glass is longer term than bodies......

Cheers,

Adam

I found a 14-24 on lensauthority.com for about $1300 so now thinking I might compromise and pair it with a D800 instead of the D800e.

Thanks for the help everyone.

Found deals and eventually went with a used D800e from Adormama and a used 14-24 from Lens Authority.

1. Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8 always will deliver better image quality at its focal range at any aperture when compared against Nikkor 16-35 f/4 and 18-35
2. Unfortunately the 14-24 is big, heavy, do not support directly filters and expensive. It was planned focused on PJ, not landscape
3. For landscape usually you will use smaller apertures and at f/8 to f/11 those three lenses will deliver images almost equal. It will be very difficult to spot any difference under favorable situations
4. Nikkor 16-35 will deliver slightly better image quality than 18-35 for its better coating and glass elements. It is more flare resistant also and the VR can be useful for travel shots with no tripod
5. I decided for Nikkor 16-35 f/4 VR also for its support for filters, directly using standard 77 mm ones. Unfortunately I think it is something overpriced but I am plenty happy I went to it. No regrets.

All the best,

This is not an easy decision to make. Why don't you try both for awhile and return the pair that doesn't work for you?

mattymeis said:

Thanks for the help everyone.

Found deals and eventually went with a used D800e from Adormama and a used 14-24 from Lens Authority.

Click to expand...

That is exactly what I have, If you don't mind how much for the 800E and shutter count, I am thinking of upgrading/trading up to 810... Congrats - prepare to go out and shoot the Milkyway, you will be amazed!




Joshua Tree NP - Elephant Arch!!!!



[ATTACH alt="The "Twin" - Upper Antelope Canyon "]media_3097823[/ATTACH]
The "Twin" - Upper Antelope Canyon

Be sure to share your pics from the trip. Have fun. ;-)

Thank you guys I will!

Just wondering vbuhay, did you have to make any fine tuning adjustments with your D800e and 14-24?

mattymeis said:

Thank you guys I will!

Just wondering vbuhay, did you have to make any fine tuning adjustments with your D800e and 14-24?

Click to expand...

I just checked my d800e + 14-24mm, it needs a +9 adjustment. It will be different from one to another Camera/Lens pairs. Note that for most of my nightsky pictures, I manually focus to Infinity in most cases....No AF required!!!! It is hard to miss focus on that lens. Enjoy!

vbuhay said:

mattymeis said:

Thank you guys I will!

Just wondering vbuhay, did you have to make any fine tuning adjustments with your D800e and 14-24?

Click to expand...

I just checked my d800e + 14-24mm, it needs a +9 adjustment, its 0 with the 24-70. It will be different from one to another Camera/Lens pairs. Note that for most of my nightsky pictures, I manually focus to Infinity in most cases....No AF required!!!! It is hard to miss focus on that lens. Enjoy!

Click to expand...

I also checked my D750 and my other lenses:

Tamron 150-600 --- saved AF fine adj = 0

50mm 1.4G --- saved AF fine adj = +6

105mm 2.8G VR--- saved AF fine adj = +5

70-200 2.89G VRII - saved AF fine adj = 0

24-70 2.8G ---saved AF fine adj = 0

14-24 2.8G --- saved AF fine adj = 0

That D750 has the best AF Between the two...

Bunza said:

14-24 with the cheaper body.

Fine lenses are long term relationships, but bodies are summer flings.

Click to expand...

+1

The 14-24 is a superlative lens and is a long-term investment. Just like every three years or so, over the past fifteen, I'll have a new camera body. The lenses usually stay. I'd rank the holy trinity of Nikkor zooms as 1A. 70-200 1B. 14-24 and 2. 24-70. That 24-70 is the real ringer in the bunch.

As mentioned the 14-24 is only 2x, very prone to flare, and doesn't take filters. I find the only real problem is the 2x zoom. I'm always looking for that extra reach. Other than that, it does everything almost perfectly (e.g. very little distortion).

Regards,

Christopher