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

[LWimages]

I love my 14-24, but I really can't use it as a walk around lens, as I would have to be very extremely careful when it's mounted on my camera.

So, I'm thinking maybe buying the 16-35 F/4 VR to replace it and will definitely use it more for PJ work.

How about y'all who owns the 14-24?

[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!

[Wes]

Have you considered the 17-35 f/2.8? Still an outstanding piece of glass.

[LWimages]

@Bill: What are the reports you are hearing?

@Wes: I tried 17-35 my D700 and didn't like the results much when shooting wide open. But of course that could just be a bad copy (used). I can't justify spending another $1700 and I don't want to have to part with my 14-24. To get the used ones, it's a bit scarce and I'd want someone locally to buy from so I can test it first.

[dmora]

i'd consider that a down grade.
I'd rather just get the 17-35 f/2.8. But i already have the 14-24, so thats too much overlap on the focal range.

Why do you have to be "extremely careful when its mounted on your camera"? Its no less rugged than any other lense Nikon makes. And someone who is going to mug you for your camera gear isnt going to pass you over because.."oh he only has the 16-35, i woulda totally kicked his ass if it was the 14-24 tho." If that were even goign to happen, he'd probably just point and laugh and say "haha you couldn't afford the pro lenses of the 17-35, or the 14-24."
and even if you were to get mugged, whats the problem? You should have insurance.

Its a consumer lens aimed at people who cannot afford 1800$ for a 2.8 aperture lens. Nikon will sell a crap ton more of these lenses than the 2.8s because, "its just as good" for a noob who doesnt know the difference that 2.8 can make.

The VR is moot at that focal range as well, unless you're trying to hand hold 1 second exposures? By contrast i can hand hold 1/30th on the 70-200 VRII. But at that focal range, any hand shake is far more noticable and needs a VR motor.

[dmcantrell]

Originally Posted by dmora

Why do you have to be "extremely careful when its mounted on your camera"?

I could be wrong, but when I read that I immediately thought of the way the front glass element (of the 14-24) protrudes from the front end of the lens body.

[jeffkohn]

Originally Posted by dmora

i'd consider that a down grade.
I'd rather just get the 17-35 f/2.8. But i already have the 14-24, so thats too much overlap on the focal range.-

Early reports are that 16-35 is not quite to the level of the 14-24, but better than the 17-35.

Its a consumer lens aimed at people who cannot afford 1800$ for a 2.8 aperture lens. Nikon will sell a crap ton more of these lenses than the 2.8s because, "its just as good" for a noob who doesnt know the difference that 2.8 can make.

It's not a consumer lens. The build quality is similar to other pro Nikkors. It seems to me the "noob" mistake would be to write off a lens based solely on its f/4 aperture. Canon makes some excellent f/4 'L' glass, and I think it's a good thing that Nikon is starting to fill this gap in their product line. For some types of shooting, f/2.8 just isn't important. The 16-35 will have a lot of appeal to landscape shooters, and when you're shooting from a tripod it doesn't much matter whether the max aperture is f/4 or f/2.8, because you're likely to be shooting in the f/5.6-f/11 range anyway. Other things become more important, like sharpness, contrast, distortion, CA, vignetting, etc. There there are issuers like size, weight, and the ability to use filters.

The VR is moot at that focal range as well, unless you're trying to hand hold 1 second exposures? By contrast i can hand hold 1/30th on the 70-200 VRII. But at that focal range, any hand shake is far more noticable and needs a VR motor.

What makes you think VR is useless? I can see it being useful for static scenes when a tripod is not possible: think churches and museums, for instance. I've also been shooting on Caddo Lake during dawn/dusk where VR is useful at any focal length. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think an f/4 with VR would be more useful for me than an f/2.8 without VR.

I have the 14-24 but it's one of my least-used lenses. Sharpness is phenomenal, but the 10mm focal range sucks and I also don't like that I can't use filters with it. I received a 16-35 this week and will be testing it. If it's good enough, I'll be selling off my 14-24. If not, I'll return it. But I won't dismiss it as a noob/wannabe lens without testing for myself.

[dmora]

Originally Posted by dmcantrell

I could be wrong, but when I read that I immediately thought of the way the front glass element (of the 14-24) protrudes from the front end of the lens body.

It comes with a lens cap.

[billbunton]

Originally Posted by louis24x7

@Bill: What are the reports you are hearing?

Same things as Jeff; it's better than the 17-35, but not as good as the 14-24. What's surprising to me is the reports of the 14-24 being better are at all apertures. I would have expected that by f/5.6 or f/8 at the most they would be pretty equal.

I haven't totally ruled it out either. There are definitely times I'd like the ability to use filters. And there are definitely times I could see the VR coming in very handy.

[LWimages]

Originally Posted by dmora

Why do you have to be "extremely careful when its mounted on your camera"?

Because the front lens is protruding out and I can't put any filer on it.

[LWimages]

Originally Posted by jeffkohn

I have the 14-24 but it's one of my least-used lenses. Sharpness is phenomenal, but the 10mm focal range sucks and I also don't like that I can't use filters with it. I received a 16-35 this week and will be testing it. If it's good enough, I'll be selling off my 14-24. If not, I'll return it. But I won't dismiss it as a noob/wannabe lens without testing for myself.

Definitely keep me in the loop. I'd like to see as well.

[The Ben]

I love my 14-24... stays on my camera most of the time. Doubt I'll be getting any other wide angles anytime soon.

[XJBaylor]

This really is a ridiculous post. There is a big difference between "internet gear monkey" and "professional" and you seem to be mistaking the two. A professional buys the equipment that will make him the biggest profit. The internet gear monkey buys whatever is being called the BEST BIGGEST etc.

Believe it or not, there are people out there who would prefer the added range of the 16-35 over the extra f-stop. Same with the VR. One is not a "noob" because they own a lens that doesn't stop down to 2.8. I still haven't decided which lens (the 17-35 or 16-35) best fits ALL of my paid photography needs. But you can rest assured that I won't feel like any less of a pro if it is the 16-35.

Finally buying this lens doesn't mean I can't afford the 14-24, only that I prefer to spend less money on a lens that is more useful for me. Your experience may differ, but it doesn't make you right. Maybe right for you, but not right for everyone.

Originally Posted by dmora

i'd consider that a down grade.
I'd rather just get the 17-35 f/2.8. But i already have the 14-24, so thats too much overlap on the focal range.

Why do you have to be "extremely careful when its mounted on your camera"? Its no less rugged than any other lense Nikon makes. And someone who is going to mug you for your camera gear isnt going to pass you over because.."oh he only has the 16-35, i woulda totally kicked his ass if it was the 14-24 tho." If that were even goign to happen, he'd probably just point and laugh and say "haha you couldn't afford the pro lenses of the 17-35, or the 14-24."
and even if you were to get mugged, whats the problem? You should have insurance.

Its a consumer lens aimed at people who cannot afford 1800$ for a 2.8 aperture lens. Nikon will sell a crap ton more of these lenses than the 2.8s because, "its just as good" for a noob who doesnt know the difference that 2.8 can make.

The VR is moot at that focal range as well, unless you're trying to hand hold 1 second exposures? By contrast i can hand hold 1/30th on the 70-200 VRII. But at that focal range, any hand shake is far more noticable and needs a VR motor.

[dmora]

Originally Posted by XJBaylor

This really is a ridiculous post. There is a big difference between "internet gear monkey" and "professional" and you seem to be mistaking the two. A professional buys the equipment that will make him the biggest profit. The internet gear monkey buys whatever is being called the BEST BIGGEST etc.

Believe it or not, there are people out there who would prefer the added range of the 16-35 over the extra f-stop. Same with the VR. One is not a "noob" because they own a lens that doesn't stop down to 2.8. I still haven't decided which lens (the 17-35 or 16-35) best fits ALL of my paid photography needs. But you can rest assured that I won't feel like any less of a pro if it is the 16-35.

Finally buying this lens doesn't mean I can't afford the 14-24, only that I prefer to spend less money on a lens that is more useful for me. Your experience may differ, but it doesn't make you right. Maybe right for you, but not right for everyone.

I think most people missed the overt hyperbole and sarcasm... yay text based medium.

[DJ.]

When I got my 17-35 there was no 14-24 or 16-35. So far I have not seen any reason to ditch the 17-35. It worked very well on the D2x and just as well on the D700, so I won't be switching any time soon.