Nikon 14-24 2.8 and 16-35 4
Aug 17, 2014 11:14:29 #
Mickey Mantle
Loc: New York City
I already own the nikon 16-35 lens and am having a GAS attack for the 14-24 wide angle. Love the 16-35, but do I really need the 14-24? Need and want are different issues. Do not need it. Should I want it to take better pictures? Could not travel with the 14-24, but would travel with the 16-35. Any opinions?
Aug 17, 2014 11:25:22 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
Mickey Mantle wrote:
I already own the nikon 16-35 lens and am having a GAS attack for the 14-24 wide angle. Love the 16-35, but do I really need the 14-24? Need and want are different issues. Do not need it. Should I want it to take better pictures? Could not travel with the 14-24, but would travel with the 16-35. Any opinions?
If your budget is effectively unlimited, you should certainly get it. Otherwise, consider if there are better uses for the $2k, either gear, learning, or travel for photography opportunities.
At the G.A.S. Support Group meetings, we try to discuss effective purchases, especially avoiding redundancy. :-)
Aug 17, 2014 11:27:32 #
Aug 17, 2014 11:32:04 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
Mickey Mantle wrote:
Thanks for helping me off the ledge. I need a GAS intervention
:thumbup:
A lot of equipment is so close in performance that it often doesn't matter which one we use, other factors are much more important to getting the best picture.
Aug 17, 2014 11:33:40 #
Mickey Mantle
Loc: New York City
I know the equipment does not make the photographer, but the GAS pains are killing me.
Aug 17, 2014 11:35:56 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
Mickey Mantle wrote:
I know the equipment does not make the photographer, but the GAS pains are killing me.
I would say the photographer and the equipment make the photograph. If you had no lens below 24mm, then it would be a very common question, "which one?", with no unequivocal right answer. But since you already have one, the other does very little for you.
Don't squash the G.A.S., redirect it elsewhere. :-)
Aug 17, 2014 11:39:59 #
Mickey Mantle
Loc: New York City
Thank you for your concern. I am very impressed that a person from Boston is helping a person from NYC. We all need to help each other in the world
Aug 17, 2014 11:46:00 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
Mickey Mantle wrote:
Thank you for your concern. I am very impressed that a person from Boston is helping a person from NYC. We all need to help each other in the world
:lol: :thumbup:
Aug 17, 2014 11:56:42 #
Mickey Mantle wrote:
I already own the nikon 16-35 lens and am having a GAS attack for the 14-24 wide angle. Love the 16-35, but do I really need the 14-24? Need and want are different issues. Do not need it. Should I want it to take better pictures? Could not travel with the 14-24, but would travel with the 16-35. Any opinions?
No, don't get it. Instead, put the money towards a trip that promises many interesting photo opportunities, and use the 16-35mm lens already in your arsenal! You'll get more out of this than adding another wide angle lens that does almost the same thing as the first.
Aug 17, 2014 12:00:34 #
Aug 17, 2014 12:20:57 #
Mickey Mantle wrote:
Great advice. Am thinking about Peru or Costa Rica
Excellent!!
Aug 17, 2014 12:33:58 #
Don't squash the G.A.S., redirect it elsewhere. :-)[/quote]
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Aug 18, 2014 05:45:37 #
I can't say if you need it or not, but the 14-24 is an incredible lens. If you can afford it, buy it. You will have no regrets. Life is short.
Aug 18, 2014 06:16:38 #
Mickey Mantle wrote:
I already own the nikon 16-35 lens and am having a GAS attack for the 14-24 wide angle. Love the 16-35, but do I really need the 14-24? Need and want are different issues. Do not need it. Should I want it to take better pictures? Could not travel with the 14-24, but would travel with the 16-35. Any opinions?
14-24 is one of Nikons' best lenses. It is noticeably better at the short end, even wide open, that the 16-35. But it is $2000 new. I have two of them I like it so much.
Aug 18, 2014 06:38:02 #
Mickey Mantle wrote:
I already own the nikon 16-35 lens and am having a GAS attack for the 14-24 wide angle. Love the 16-35, but do I really need the 14-24? Need and want are different issues. Do not need it. Should I want it to take better pictures? Could not travel with the 14-24, but would travel with the 16-35. Any opinions?
I have both lenses. I use the 14-24 for all of my interior photography and the 16-35 for exterior photography with my polarizer filter. I shoot mostly on tripod and if I had to sell my 14-24 I would not miss it. I can do everything with my 16-35 that I can do with my 14-24 and more. If you want to add a very cool lens, get a 24mm 1.4. Have that lens with the 16-35 is quite the combination. When using the 24mm, you would always shoot it at 1.4. The photos with that 24mm 1.4 lens are astonishing. You just cat compare the finished photo of a 24mm at 1.4 with the results you get from the 16-35 at 24mm. you will be blown away.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.