16-35mm f/4G ED VR or 14-24mm f/2.8G ED

[Kit]

Well, you are paying for a top notch (to a certain extend, revolutionary) lens. I sold my 14-24mm because I found a replacement which suits me better.

 

[Cheesecake]

Well, you are paying for a top notch (to a certain extend, revolutionary) lens. I sold my 14-24mm because I found a replacement which suits me better.

yup, in the end it boils down to personal preferences and usage.

the 16-35 suits my workflow better. in terms of IQ, probably loses out. but the VR is very useful when doing events. can't ask for more.



good luck TS. find one that suits ur style and usage most.

 

[bethpapa74]

I sold my 14-24 ... becos my filter system are 100mm.

I am using 24/1.4G now with my filter... it is sharp and good for me.

for uwa, i use stitching .... i might even buy 14-24 back next time

 

[Dfive]

just a thought and for sharing purposes, u shouldn't consider the 17-35 at all.

its 1st generation AFS motor and my past experiences with it yielded 3 AFS motor breaking down in the span of 3 years. back then even as an NPS member, the repair fee came up to some S$900+-. eventually sold the lens when the 3rd AFS motor has the all-too-familiar squeaky sound, which is probably the first sign of trouble. solid performer but sadly, not one that can last the distance. your mileage might vary though.

probably it kaput due to my heavy usage back then but it is supposed to be made to handle the heavy usage, was it not?
u can google the AFS problem on the 17-35 and it seems that there have been a number of such cases.

To be devils advocate..... This Lens came out to support the D1 in 1999, so its the oldest AFS lens at 14 years now... In 2006 it was tweaked by Nikon, unknown as to what but it was def made lighter by 20-30grams.

Nikon has made some 150,000 of these lenses approx ~ Whilst not denying the issue is def there I don't think 150,000 people are unhappy with it.

I think you'll find more pros are happier than un happy with the lens. End of day.... a person ( customer ) who is un happy tells 10-15 people... more so now in social media days. Yet a person who IS happy tells 3-5 people.

I miss the days of AF-D lenses... ALL longer lasting lenses IMO !

How will our 24mm f/1.4's perform in 8-10 years is anyones guess.......

 

[Cheesecake]

To be devils advocate..... This Lens came out to support the D1 in 1999, so its the oldest AFS lens at 14 years now... In 2006 it was tweaked by Nikon, unknown as to what but it was def made lighter by 20-30grams.

Nikon has made some 150,000 of these lenses approx ~ Whilst not denying the issue is def there I don't think 150,000 people are unhappy with it.

I think you'll find more pros are happier than un happy with the lens. End of day.... a person ( customer ) who is un happy tells 10-15 people... more so now in social media days. Yet a person who IS happy tells 3-5 people.

I miss the days of AF-D lenses... ALL longer lasting lenses IMO !

How will our 24mm f/1.4's perform in 8-10 years is anyones guess.......

as long as it works for u, why not? the main bulk of my lenses are still AF-D lenses. but, no way will I pick up this lens again.

do not take my words for it though. it is probably my bad luck for having the same issues over and over again.

u might just be the shining lucky star! huat ah!

 

[Dfive]

as long as it works for u, why not? the main bulk of my lenses are still AF-D lenses. but, no way will I pick up this lens again.

do not take my words for it though. it is probably my bad luck for having the same issues over and over again.

u might just be the shining lucky star! huat ah!

heheh... I just love the Nikkor DC Lenses.... razor sharp tanks !!

 

[skyguy]

thanks for all the reply, its really helpful.
From all the discussion, i have decided to go for the 16-35mm, mainly f2.8 is not really useful (cityscape), the VR will come in handy when taking birthday party, can easily purchase and learn about the lee big stopper, and of coz last but not least the price.

anyway, you guys can go on and discuss about the lee big stopper on the 2 lens

 

[Hacker]

I have both, including the Lee filter for the 14-24mm. I have only used the 16-35mm. Just too big.

 

[daredevil123]

as long as it works for u, why not? the main bulk of my lenses are still AF-D lenses. but, no way will I pick up this lens again.

do not take my words for it though. it is probably my bad luck for having the same issues over and over again.

u might just be the shining lucky star! huat ah!

You are not the only one with this problem... I have heard of at least 2 to 3 other cases from people I know. Which is why I stayed clear of the 1735.

 

[Cheesecake]

You are not the only one with this problem... I have heard of at least 2 to 3 other cases from people I know. Which is why I stayed clear of the 1735.

i guess we're the unfortunate ones? wahahaha :bsmilie:


i steer clear of that lens, even though its a wonderful performer.

 

[Cheesecake]

thanks for all the reply, its really helpful.
From all the discussion, i have decided to go for the 16-35mm, mainly f2.8 is not really useful (cityscape), the VR will come in handy when taking birthday party, can easily purchase and learn about the lee big stopper, and of coz last but not least the price.

anyway, you guys can go on and discuss about the lee big stopper on the 2 lens

its the most affordable choice and practicality wise, the right choice. :thumbsup:

 

[Dfive]

its the most affordable choice and practicality wise, the right choice. :thumbsup:

Agree... he made a good choice.

 

[Kenneth Chen]

I am using the FX lens 14-24mm f2.8 which I borrow from a friend on my D600 this is a fantastic lens good for landscape photography. I strongly recommend you if you are a pro photographer. Its goes well with the D600 the firmware / software calibrate for the lens match perfectly. Best wishes

 

[bomby929]

I have both but later sold my 16-35mm f4. Reason is that I find that I use the 14-24mm more for some reason. 16-35mm was good esp when u need to do video, the vr is something I would miss a lot.

 

[NikF601]

thanks for all the reply, its really helpful.
From all the discussion, i have decided to go for the 16-35mm, mainly f2.8 is not really useful (cityscape), the VR will come in handy when taking birthday party, can easily purchase and learn about the lee big stopper, and of coz last but not least the price.

anyway, you guys can go on and discuss about the lee big stopper on the 2 lens

Enjoy your 16-35 !!!!!

 

[avsquare]

thanks for all the reply, its really helpful.
From all the discussion, i have decided to go for the 16-35mm, mainly f2.8 is not really useful (cityscape), the VR will come in handy when taking birthday party, can easily purchase and learn about the lee big stopper, and of coz last but not least the price.

anyway, you guys can go on and discuss about the lee big stopper on the 2 lens

anyways, hope you are aware that for the 16-35mm, the VR is only useful for still objects, or when you purposely slow the shutter to create motion blur or shooting night portraits with flash etc. VR doesn't help to stop motion for photos like birthday party or indoor events, assuming light is poor and you're not using flash

I've owned all 3 Nikon UWAs and I do agree that 16-35mm is the general choice out of all. However, if you are using the older camera models such as the D700/D3 series with 12MP only, the 17-35mm f/2.8, to me is a better choice. Center is sharp as usual and corners is also very good. But if you use it on newer models with larger pixels like the D600's 24MP, it will struggle quite a little.

14-24mm of course is the best of all. Exceptional resolution power at 14mm end from center to corners and virtually no barrel distortion on the 24mm. Just that the filter issue turns away most user. Price is probably the next most important turn-away factor.

 

[Luminare]

I personally would find that if there is no need to use f/2.8, the 16-35mm would be a better choice.

Corner performances while extraordinary for the 14-24mm, it is lesser noticed in most applications.

Hence, if there is a choice to chose either lens only, depending on usage, the 16-35mm would suit more applications than the 14-24mm.

 

[lenslust]

I personally would find that if there is no need to use f/2.8, the 16-35mm would be a better choice.

Corner performances while extraordinary for the 14-24mm, it is lesser noticed in most applications.

Hence, if there is a choice to chose either lens only, depending on usage, the 16-35mm would suit more applications than the 14-24mm.

EMMV, I have the 17-35 f/2.8 and is still looking to add on a 16-35 for travelling and general purpose. For events, using with flash, the 16-35 will suffice at f/4, using it wide open at ISO6400 would be slightly limiting even with VR for events.

 

[Blur Shadow]

Wow! Quite a bit of discussion there!

I am aware that the Nikon AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8 is prone to SWM failure. But thankfully, the copy that I am familiar with hasn't exhibited any signs of failure yet.

On to the discussion of using the 16-35mm as a multi-role wide angle lens... Well, it is certainly possible, but I don't think it is the best tool for the job. Of course, if you are a professional pressed for margins or a budget-limited consumer, this idea is perfect. But one must recognize that the f/4.0 really isn't terribly fast and the VR is not useful in events since you would prefer to use a high shutter speed to freeze movement. Thank goodness for the excellent high-ISO capable sensors!

 

[szeping]

On to the discussion of using the 16-35mm as a multi-role wide angle lens... Well, it is certainly possible, but I don't think it is the best tool for the job. Of course, if you are a professional pressed for margins or a budget-limited consumer, this idea is perfect. But one must recognize that the f/4.0 really isn't terribly fast and the VR is not useful in events since you would prefer to use a high shutter speed to freeze movement. Thank goodness for the excellent high-ISO capable sensors!

I agree with this. I bought a 16-35 after testing 14-24 and 17-35. It's the most utilised lens for me (landscape and event) though I also own a 24-70.
I'm pretty satisfied with its performance even in wedding photography under available light. Of course you gain a stop advantage with the other 2 primes, it doesn't mean you can't have great images captured by losing a stop in ISO. It's like comparing my current setup of new body + slower lens with an old time photographer with older body + faster lens... both might deliver the similar result by comparing just the ability to freeze the motion
For sure, 16mm is good enough for me and I can still tolerate the distortion. It all boils down to personal preference... But my major point is that I don't find the losing F/stop will deter much on event photography with new camera body when you are shooting wide. And the VR really helps if you are taking landscape at 1/3s.