Nikon 14-24 2.8 and 16-35 4
Aug 18, 2014 16:52:45 #
I see you've come to the right conclusion. 16-35 is great. Go for the the workhorse 24-70- super lens.
Aug 18, 2014 17:01:30 #
Aug 18, 2014 17:04:33 #
winterrose wrote:
Just buy one, you won't be happy until you do and you know it.
I did, and now I won't be happy until I sell the D800 and get an 810.
I did, and now I won't be happy until I sell the D800 and get an 810.
I have a 800E, a700, and a Df. I love all three-but I played with an 810 in Best Buy last week, and had a serious GAS attack. Makes no sense. Is it an addiction?
Aug 18, 2014 17:13:25 #
Aug 18, 2014 17:15:50 #
Aug 18, 2014 17:22:30 #
moonhawk wrote:
Do you have any issues with the CP when shooting at the wide end--like vignetting, or unequal polarization because of the wide arc of view?
Thanks...
Thanks...
You won't have a vignetting problem if you buy a "thin" CP. I use a Murami thin. Excellent reasonably priced CP...about $90 for the size of the 16-35...which also happens to fit my 28-300.
But if you shoot a real clear and blue sky at the low zoom end with the sun at 90 degrees you will see a difference in the effect across the sky. For me that is rare and if offensive I can fix in post processing. But I hardly ever need to. The CP is useful in a wide variety of situations not involving blue sky.
Aug 18, 2014 17:23:50 #
Mickey Mantle wrote:
The GAS is consuming us all. We all need help and therapy
Might need to join GASers anonymous and enter the twelve step program.
Aug 18, 2014 18:03:25 #
rfmaude41
Loc: Lancaster, Texas (DFW area)
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?
In addition to the 16-35, pick up a 14mm; will cover all that you need. If not pickup a circular fisheye...
Aug 18, 2014 21:22:11 #
MtnMan wrote:
You won't have a vignetting problem if you buy a &... (show quote)
Thanks, i used to use polarizers all the time back in the day. Somehow got out of the habit when I went digital. My widest lens used to be a 24 f/2.8. It was more or less permanently affixed to my F3HP, and I don't recall any issues with the polarizer.
But, now I have an 18-35, and haven't bought a 77mm CPL yet, since it's the only lens I use that has that size, at least for now.
Hence my question. Thanks again for your reply.
Aug 19, 2014 04:05:24 #
Bram boy
Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada
amehta wrote:
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. :-)
At the G.A.S. Support Group meetings, we try to discuss effective purchases, especially avoiding redundancy. :-)
could you under stand any of that , he lost me when he said could not travel
with the 14-24 but would with the 16-35 mm , what the ?
Aug 19, 2014 06:37:10 #
Mickey Mantle
Loc: New York City
I meant that the 14-24 would have no protective uv filter and would be much more exposed to getting harmed.
Aug 19, 2014 13:41:31 #
Bram boy
Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada
Mickey Mantle wrote:
I meant that the 14-24 would have no protective uv filter and would be much more exposed to getting harmed.
I don't beleive it , I have had a camera for fifty years several . never use the camera case , it comes off right away , don't use filters uv or any other
never had a incident yet and my camera goes every where I go ?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.