Anyone with Nikon 14-24 F/2.8 thinking of getting 16-35 F/4 VR?

[Jaycee]

Jeff, what did you decide about the 16-35? Did you keep it? Did you sell the 14-24? Thanks for any info!

[tc95]

Louis....You can put filters on the 14-24...it is a quite niffty fix...from Lee-Filters...

You Tube

You Tube

Man that is one lens I wish I had for my Sony system...I would love to own it again...I miss it a lot...(Like everyone else)...I would not get rid of it...I would just add another lens...

Good Luck with your decision.....

[jeffkohn]

Originally Posted by Jaycee

Jeff, what did you decide about the 16-35? Did you keep it? Did you sell the 14-24? Thanks for any info!

The 16-35 is a good lens, by all accounts better than the 17-35. It has some massive barrel distortion at its widest settings, but it still respectably sharp. The 20-30mm range seems to be where it really excels, and since that's the range I most wanted it for I'll be happy with the lens. Above 30mm image quality starts to degrade and it falls well be hind the 24-70 AF-S at 35mm.

I'm still undecided whether to keep the 14-24, which at this point would really be a 14-20mm lens for me since any difference between it and the 16-35 is negligible in the 20-24mm range. I don't need the 14-20mm range often (very rarely, in fact). If the distortion on the 16-35 wasn't so bad at 16mm, I'd probably sell the 14-24, but I have a feeling I'll probably keep the 14-24 just in case.

[Murph]

Thanks, you just saved me from making a mistake.

Originally Posted by jeffkohn

The 16-35 is a good lens, by all accounts better than the 17-35. It has some massive barrel distortion at its widest settings, but it still respectably sharp. The 20-30mm range seems to be where it really excels, and since that's the range I most wanted it for I'll be happy with the lens. Above 30mm image quality starts to degrade and it falls well be hind the 24-70 AF-S at 35mm.

I'm still undecided whether to keep the 14-24, which at this point would really be a 14-20mm lens for me since any difference between it and the 16-35 is negligible in the 20-24mm range. I don't need the 14-20mm range often (very rarely, in fact). If the distortion on the 16-35 wasn't so bad at 16mm, I'd probably sell the 14-24, but I have a feeling I'll probably keep the 14-24 just in case.

[KenJulio]

So I was doing some reading and found a comparison between the 16-35 and 17-35. As Jeff mentioned, at the widest, you'll have distortion which can be corrected in post.

Here's a link to the blog which has samples.

Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR Review

[LWimages]

After testing the 16-35 for a couple of weeks, I'm happy with mine. I've decided to keep my 14-24 just because it is also a wonderful lens.

[Paulo]

Sorry to revive such an old thread but those that's posted(or lurked) that's been using 16-35 f/4 and the 17-35 f/2.8, are the image quality between the two really that significant when viewing final result in print? I imagine the subtle side by side differences are more obvious if pixel-peeping or viewing at 100% crop. The 17-35 results I've seen have mostly been outstanding unless equipment was a bad copy or operator error in effect. I've seen a number of 17-35 hit the market when the 16-35 came out.

[DougC]

Originally Posted by billbunton

i might possibly add a 16-35, though from the reports i'm hearing that's becoming less likely. But i would certainly never replace my 14-24 with the 16-35!

a huge +1!!!

[scottbuckel]

I never purchased the 14-24 but I rented two of them a couple of years ago. I really liked the lens, but I did not like the fact you could not use a filter, so I was going to pick up the 17-35 just due to filter issue.

I did purchase the 16-35 and I love it as others have noted it does have slightly better image quality over the 17-35. Now if I had a 14-24 would I replace it with a 16-35, I do not think so as the 14-24 overall is a great lens. Lee Filters just started shipping the accessories that was noted in the Youtube video above so my filter issues would go away.

Just for selective focus I would like to have that one stop that the 17-35 and 14-24 have, but I still enjoy and like the quality I get from the 16-35.

Scott

[jstevensphoto]

I'm leaning toward the 16-35 over the 14-24 myself. Nikon seems to be headed toward good quality f4 lenses. I have their new 24-120 f4 and it's a good lens. Maybe not quiet as sharp as some of my f2.8s, but honestly, I hardly ever shoot wide open anyway. I currently use a Sigma 12-24 and Nikon 18-35 for wide. Both are decent lenses, but I am so impressed with the 24-120 that I'm hoping the 16-35 is just as useful. I have friends who swear they would never use a "non-professional", non-f2.8 lens. For me, it's all about the photo. If I could do it with a pinhole in a shoebox, I would.

[bgpro611]

I sold my 14-24 and bought a 16-35 earlier this year and am quite happy with the exchange. One click in Lightroom takes care of distortion, the VR can be very handy and it is lighter than the 14-24. Also I did worry about that glass sticking out foolish or not. It was a good move for me even if I do miss that extra 2mm every once in awhile.

[jstevensphoto]

I know this is a little off thread, but lots of folks speak of selling used lenses when they upgrade. Just curious, where do most of you sell your stuff? When I try to "trade in" lenses at a camera store, I almost feel like I'm giving them away:)

[DougC]

Buy & sell forums are all over the web. Here, fredmiranda.com, naturescapes.net, nikonians to name a few.

[shnitz]

I know that this is an old thread, but there are things I though I'd add, despite the discussion being dead for so long.

-If you can't afford to take a lens out of its glass case and actually use it, then you can't afford the lens. Sell it off and buy something that you aren't afraid to use, because you'll actually have pictures, which is the whole reason to buy a lens, not to own it so that you can put it in your signature to show off to all of your e-friends. It's much better to buy a $400 product that you're comfortable using than a $4,000 product that you keep locked up.

-A UV filter isn't necessary for protection. This is a debate that will never end, one way or another, but with lenses like the 14-24mm, it's already settled for you, since it doesn't accept filters. Obviously, this means that Nikon feels confident that you can go out and shoot the lens without putting glass in front, a custom welded titanium cage around, a phalanx of soldiers around, etc. These things aren't made out of paper, and they can endure a lot more abuse than one may expect. Also, most small marks don't even affect image quality, or if they do, then they probably affect the image quality much less than that filter you threw in front of the lens. Last, when the marks finally do cause enough damage to the lens that you're getting softer images, sending the lens to Nikon to replace the front element is almost just as cheap as replacing the front filter, if you put a quality one on in the first place.

Originally Posted by jstevensphoto

I know this is a little off thread, but lots of folks speak of selling used lenses when they upgrade. Just curious, where do most of you sell your stuff? When I try to "trade in" lenses at a camera store, I almost feel like I'm giving them away:)

I like Craigslist best. No costs. The only problem is that you get so many Nigerians emailing you giving you bogus stories like:
"I am a businessperson but don't have time to meet, can I just pay you double and you send the lens to my daughter stationed in Africa?"
It's so bad that on every email through Craiglist, they add a big yellow box with red font at the top of the email saying to only deal locally. I think that is an excellent suggestion. To keep yourself safe on Craiglist, I would only sell in person, and rather than meet at your house or theirs, meet at a public place. I like coffee shops and cafes best, but you could just as easily demand that they meet in the lobby of your bank, to verify that the money is not counterfeit (I've done this once for a large sale, but most of mine I don't worry about; it's me being slightly paranoid I'm sure). Also accept cash only, or any other form of payment that you feel comfortable with, like cashier's check, but avoid personal checks.

Selling on this forum is also a valid option; have you ever visited the Buy and Sell section? Your other photo forums may also have such sections, but this one is nice because you don't have to deal with shipping and insurance, paypal, etc (which isn't a huge deal, but any less hassle is appreciated).