nikon16-35/f4 or nikon14-24/f2.8 for FX? (><)


Jan 28, 2011
566
0
0
#1
Hi all,
can advise which lens is optimal for a FX?

I like the wideness of a 14mm but the inability to mount front filter is a big turn-off.
I do understand that there are 3rd party ones but they are too expensive and doesn't align well with my 24-70 lens.

I have a 77mm CPL and 77mm ND fader ... so rightfully i should get 16-35mm right?

Any advise?

I hope to do 15% landscape, 50% group shoots, 20% indoor activities, etc etc
 

onoz123

New Member
Mar 2, 2007
97
1
0
#4
If not going for much landscape shot, I suggest 14-24.

I was on the same same boat few months ago, but decided to go for 14-24. Going filterless is not a big turn down if shooting indoors. If I am to comment, it will be the size too big, having hard time to fit it in to my bag.
 

cfusion2k

New Member
Oct 26, 2002
34
0
0
37
Visit site
#5
If you are taking a lot of still shots indoor, the 16-35 is better for hand held shot as the vr works at least 2 stops. I used it extensively in my last travel.
 

acpical

New Member
Jul 25, 2007
414
0
0
#6
From highest IQ to lowest:

  • 14-24mm f/2.8
  • 16-35mm f/4
  • 17-35mm f/2.8

If you are not too particular about IQ, 16-35mm is a good compromise. If you really need the f/2.8, I recommend the 14-24mm. I would skip 17-35mm altogether.
 

ZeroDivine

Senior Member
Sep 5, 2004
2,071
1
0
andritei.zenfolio.com
#7
Agree.. the 17-35 corner is quite poor actually.
The 14-24 is the best, but if u need to use filter, 16-35 is a good compromise.
 

MrMooMoo

New Member
Nov 16, 2010
38
0
0
43
#8
Be mindful of distortion, for group shots people at the sides may appear elongated.
I feel that 14-24 distortion is better controlled and I prefer it's iq. 16-35mm not too bad neither as you mentioned take all 77mm filters. Given a chance again,I would not have upgraded my 16-35mm to 14-24mm for the filter reason. I have bought third party filter holder and DIYed to fit too the 14-24mm lens at cheap price, only problem is hard to get cokin pro x filters as the company seem to have stop production after bought over by some jap company. Seem that other manufacturer do not produced 170mmx 130mm filters also.
 

Last edited:
#9
Happy user of the 14-24mm here...it is an excellent lens. Over the disadvantage if not being able to use filters, I'll still pick the 14-24mm for its very low distortion which can be corrected easily, optically fast, very very sharp and detailed, contrast and colour is excellent too. What more can one ask from a lens?
 

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,657
68
48
lil red dot
#10
Happy user of the 14-24mm here...it is an excellent lens. Over the disadvantage if not being able to use filters, I'll still pick the 14-24mm for its very low distortion which can be corrected easily, optically fast, very very sharp and detailed, contrast and colour is excellent too. What more can one ask from a lens?
The 16-35's distortion can also be corrected very easily since the distortion is not very complex. And with the software today, the profiles are already preloaded so it is only a one button thing.

In the end you have to ask yourself if you need that extra wideness in focal length or aperture, at the expense of price, weight and ability to use filters.
 

Last edited:
#11
Yup agreed. TS mentioned that he liked the wideness at 14mm but don't like the inability to mount filter. So end of the day, TS got to choose between the 2.

If you're intending to mount filters to protect the front element. Then I say that's not necessary unless you abuse your gear. Front elements are quite tough. (DigitalRevTV actually hammered nails with the front element for it to break 1 of the 2 kit lenses, so even hammering nails with the front element might not break it.) If its for filters like Cir pol and ND filters...then yes it is a problem.
 

Kit

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
11,697
42
48
42
Upper Bukit Timah
Visit site
#12
Its not impossible to mount filters on the 14-24mm. LEE makes a dedicated holder for this lens to use with their 150 x 150 slot-in filters but in all of their wisdom, they refuse to expand their range of filters.
 

NikF601

Senior Member
Jul 26, 2010
1,541
0
36
52
CCK
#13
Hope Nikon can come up with another new len within this few month starting from 12mm or 14mm to 24mm zoom with 77mm thread for FX...
 

Jan 28, 2011
566
0
0
#14
it is seriously a tough choice ... i have been shooting alot with my 24-70 and often restraint by 24mm width.

one question ... is 16-35/f4 feel very plasticky?
I saw a review on youtube and that guy said very plastic outer-shell unlike the 14-24 which built like a solid tank.

There are people who trade their 14-24 for 16-35 and vice versa ... end of the day, i believe i got to try those lens out to decide for myself.
I did tried 14-24 in NSC and I really like that 14mm wide angle... also did try my friend tokina 16mm ... it feels alright too :)
The 14mm gave me a little extra 2mm of wide ... I dun really fancy f-stop of 2.8 but though its good to have it.

14mm ~ 114 degree
16mm ~ 107 degree

Dilemma ..... ....
 

CorneliusK

Senior Member
Jan 23, 2010
790
0
16
#15
The 16-35 does not have the sharpness and contrast of the 14-24, but I feel that its a more practical lens overall to use.

1. Cheaper
2. Lighter and more compact
3. VR allows absurdly low shutterspeeds. Good for low light shots without support. This is especially useful if you strobe or make use of slow speed sync.
4. Easier use of filters.
 

Kit

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
11,697
42
48
42
Upper Bukit Timah
Visit site
#16
Got both but sold the 16-35 away. Truthfully, both lenses are pretty much on par where IQ is concerned or at least, I couldn't see any differences on an A3 print.
 

Jan 28, 2011
566
0
0
#17
I am not judging with any of these 'trinity' lenses for now ... but I am more incline to 14-24 because

- my 24-70 can cover that 35mm of 16-35
- 14-24 can cover 16mm portion but not the other way round

Kit hi,
why did you sell away your 16-35mm by the way?
 

ZerocoolAstra

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2008
9,522
0
0
rainy Singapore
#18
I guess because you have the 24-70, it's a tougher choice between the 2 lenses.

For me, I went for 16-35VR for the following reasons:

- cheaper and lighter, especially of concern to me when travelling.
- VR quite beneficial at times
- focal range useful as a main lens, and switch to fast primes of 50 and 85mm when requiring thin DOF.
- can use screw-on filters

I have never liked the 24-70, so obviously I come from a different perspective than you.

that's just my 2c :)
 

Kit

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
11,697
42
48
42
Upper Bukit Timah
Visit site
#19
I am not judging with any of these 'trinity' lenses for now ... but I am more incline to 14-24 because

- my 24-70 can cover that 35mm of 16-35
- 14-24 can cover 16mm portion but not the other way round

Kit hi,
why did you sell away your 16-35mm by the way?
I sold the 16-35mm away because of the horrible curvilinear distortions, which is critical to my work. Granted, you can fix most of these in post but I've had more than enough instances where the distortion just cannot be fixed and I had to re-shoot.
 

Kit

Senior Member
Jan 19, 2002
11,697
42
48
42
Upper Bukit Timah
Visit site
#20
I guess because you have the 24-70, it's a tougher choice between the 2 lenses.

For me, I went for 16-35VR for the following reasons:

- cheaper and lighter, especially of concern to me when travelling.
- VR quite beneficial at times
- focal range useful as a main lens, and switch to fast primes of 50 and 85mm when requiring thin DOF.
- can use screw-on filters

I have never liked the 24-70, so obviously I come from a different perspective than you.

that's just my 2c :)
You bought it? With the D700?
 

Top Bottom