bogeyeliot Loc: Signal Hill, CA

Beat me to the punch! Good one 8-)

amehta Loc: Boston

The Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC is a "DX" lens, so it would work as well on a FX camera like the D800E which the OP has.

amehta Loc: Boston

The ultra-wide angle lenses often have large, curved front elements which protrude past the front of the lens If they extended the edge of the lens out enough to hold a filter, there would be vignetting. The third party offerings are large holders, the ones which were mentioned are about 150mm (6"), much bigger than the front lens, to avoid vignetting.

The Sigma 18-35mm is an excellent lens, by all reports, but it is a DX lens. Think of it as the upgrade for the 18-55mm DX kit lens.

amehta Loc: Boston

The Tokina AT-X 16-28mm f/2.8 does seem competitive, so if anyone other than the OP is looking for an ultra wide-angle FX zoom, this is worth considering. I've had Tokina AT-X lenses in the past, and was always happy with their build and performance.

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

This particular Nikon lens (the 14-24) as well as a number of other "super-wide angle" lenses offered by all the major manufacturers have very bulbous front elements that preclude the use of a flat filter that can be screwed onto the front of the lens.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Read the reviews by Thom Hogan. I have. I believe that you'll find that the 14-24mm is, by far, the best lens available for a wide angle at that range.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

You really can't use a polarizer lens on a wide angle. You could drop flat nd lenses in front of it.

Bugfan Loc: Toronto, Canada

My vote is for the 14-24 mm. That lens gets you a wider angle and is faster too. I have one and I love it. The 16-35 is less of a wide angle, slower, and redundant, you already have 35 mm in your 24-70.

amadjuster Loc: Amarillo, TX

Yep, you're from Austin.

rdgreenwood Loc: Kennett Square, Pennsylvania

Well, there are going to be a number of people who think I've lost my mind, but I finally made my decision. Your input was great and helped me tremendously. More than the support of a certain lens, what you gave me was a list of the differences that I had to consider, a sense of what you and I, as photographers, value in a piece of equipment. My wife will be pleased and astounded to learn that I've decided to buy the less expensive lens. I'm buying the 16-35 mm f/4 lens.

If you're scratching your head and wondering why I made this decision, I can sum it up in one word: filters. I'm not the nimble, adroit person I was a while back and have tripped and fallen three times in the last four years. Each time I had my camera and the lens I had on it was saved by the UV filter. The 14-24 mm lens won't accept a filter, so I'd have to be constantly worrying about it. I'm not good at doing anything on a "constantly" basie. I can't take the chance of trashing a $2000 lens.

Again, thank you for your input. UHH is a wonderful resource, and your assistance was most appreciated. You may now begin to fight over Nikon vs Canon, HDR, and the danger posed by a forest dwelling moose.

amehta Loc: Boston

:thumbup:

JJ Imagery

In my opinion, to the naked eye.... yes, it does. Whatever the differences in quality, it does not justify the startlingly expensive cost of similar Canon and Nikon lenses. I love my Sigma 24-70 2.8 and would recommend it without hesitation.

rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA

I would strongly urge you to look at the Sigma 18-35 F1.8 DC HSM lens.

Also, Moose bites can be fairly nasty...

amehta Loc: Boston

The "DC" in the Sigma lens designation means "crop sensor lens". The OP has a full-frame camera.

And yes, I avoid the moose bites with the heaviest equipment to fight him off! :-)

SteveR Loc: Michigan

That is, of course, what insurance is for. I have a rider on my home owners that covers everything including damage, so don't let fear of falling keep you from the best lens. By the way, did you read the Thom Hogan reviews? You've gotta do that before making your final decision, too.