17/35mm verses 14/24mm both f2.8


ndwgolf

New Member
Sep 25, 2013
163
5
0
Kuala Lumpur
#1
Guys,
I have both of the above lenses and wondered which one to take back to the UK for shooting landscapes..............I THINK the 14/24 is the better of the two but I like the idea of the size of the 17/35 and that fact that I can screw on my B&W 10 stop ND filter and use my Lee GND filter holder and filters with the 17/35mm f2.8 (77mm filter holder like all my other lenses................what do you think?????
 

Luminare

Senior Member
May 25, 2012
896
13
18
S'pore
#2
UK is your home town and it really voice down to where and what you want to do.

I had several working and holiday trips to the UK, from London to Isle of Skye in Scotland and anything from 14 to 35mm is useful depending on where you are.

To do seascapes off cornwall, if I had only one lens to bring, i'll take the 17-35mm f/2.8 as the ND filter can come in handy and 35mm is likely a better stand of distance when the sea edges get rough or when "less is more" comes into play.

If back to cities like London, Cardiff and Edinburgh, the 14-24mm f/2.8 can have a slight edge over the 17-35mm f2.8 due to corner sharpness and is 3mm wider.
 

Last edited:

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,660
68
48
lil red dot
#3
If I had to choose one, 17-35 would be it. If I need any wider, I would shoot more and stitch.
 

Blur Shadow

Senior Member
Sep 17, 2005
4,886
4
0
#4
I prefer the 14-24mm for the superior optics, and I have already invested in the Lee filter system for the 14-24mm. So that sums it up.
 

ndwgolf

New Member
Sep 25, 2013
163
5
0
Kuala Lumpur
#5
Albert I am thinking the same, I like taking waterfall/beach shots so like the idea of the B&W 10 stop screwing right onto the lens
 

ndwgolf

New Member
Sep 25, 2013
163
5
0
Kuala Lumpur
#6
I prefer the 14-24mm for the superior optics, and I have already invested in the Lee filter system for the 14-24mm. So that sums it up.
Congrats.......I still have the 14/24 holder but damaged the filters :(
 

Kit

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
11,699
42
48
42
Upper Bukit Timah
Visit site
#7
Guys,
I have both of the above lenses and wondered which one to take back to the UK for shooting landscapes..............I THINK the 14/24 is the better of the two but I like the idea of the size of the 17/35 and that fact that I can screw on my B&W 10 stop ND filter and use my Lee GND filter holder and filters with the 17/35mm f2.8 (77mm filter holder like all my other lenses................what do you think?????
I think only you can answer your own question, which I think you almost did. You are going to use filters so unless you get a set of slot-ins for the 14-24mm, you don't really have a choice do you? I have used the 17-35mm back in the film days (with F100) and it was THE wide angle zoom 10 years ago. Don't really know how it will match up with digital sensors though but I presume its no slouch either. It might sound strange but I think corner sharpness isn't all that critical for landscapes unless you are going to print big with details hanging in the foreground or edges. I also feel that an ultra wide isn't needed as much as previously thought for landscapes. I tend to frame a scene with what I have and try not to think about the lenses I left at home. Just me.
 

ortega

Moderator
Staff member
Nov 2, 2004
23,694
10
38
Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
#8
which is more important for your shots?

14mm or the ability to use your filters
that should answer your question

you could sell away your 17-35 f2.8 and get the filter system for the 14-24 f2.8 and have best of both worlds
with exception of the size and weight
 

ndwgolf

New Member
Sep 25, 2013
163
5
0
Kuala Lumpur
#9
which is more important for your shots?

14mm or the ability to use your filters
that should answer your question

you could sell away your 17-35 f2.8 and get the filter system for the 14-24 f2.8 and have best of both worlds
with exception of the size and weight
You want to buy it??
 

Top Bottom