ultra wides: OK. So I went and bought a Nikon D610 yesterday. I already have a Nikon 70-200, will be buying a 24-70 f2.8, and want an ultra wide. I'm just not sure which one. I will be...

shutterbob Loc: Tucson

OK. So I went and bought a Nikon D610 yesterday. I already have a Nikon 70-200, will be buying a 24-70 f2.8, and want an ultra wide. I'm just not sure which one. I will be sticking with a Nikon lens, but don't know if a 14-24 f2.8, 16-35 f4, or 17-35 f2.8 would be best for my needs. I shoot mostly outdoor scenics with an occasional indoor/dark outdoor setting. I like the price of the 16-35, but I like the f2.8 of the others. I do like to have a filter on the lens front for protection, but it's not a deal breaker that the 14-24 won't accept one. I think the VR on the 16-35 is kind of useless for an ultra wide but won't dismiss it just for that. Thoughts?

amehta Loc: Boston

shutterbob wrote:

OK. So I went and bought a Nikon D610 yesterday. I... (show quote)

The VR is useful for the same reason f/2.8 is: low light. With these lenses, you are much more likely to be shooting at 1/15 sec than worrying about moving subjects where one stop of shutter speed makes a difference. The 14-24mm is a royal pain to deal with. My dad is a really good landscape/scenics photographer, but he doesn't take the 14-24mm out much because it iis too cumbersome. I would go for the 16-35mm f/4. Or maybe get the Nikon 14mm f/2.8. You'll already get to 24mm, and with most of these zoom, it seems like we use the two ends of the focal length.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

The image quality on the 14-24 is unequaled. It is probably one of Nikon's top lenses - right alongside their 300 F2.8, 400 F2.8, 105 and 135 DC, and their 85 1.4.

Camera movement on a wide angle is less of an issue than on normal and longer lenses - I routinely use mine hand-held with a D800 at shutter speeds around 1/15 to 1/30 with excellent results. Image quality at 14mm is considerably better than the 14mm prime. which has lower sharpness in the center and unacceptably poor sharpness in the corners and edges at F2.8. While the 14mm prime improves at F8, it never attains the image quality of the zoom, which is why I no longer own a 14mm prime.

Check out DXO Mark lens ratings - http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Ratings

You won't find a 14mm prime rated much higher than 17-18, yet the zoom is rated at 28. If you Google for reviews you will find review after review describing the quality of the lens. Similarly, you won't find raves for the 14mm prime.

I ended up (long story) with two 14-24 zooms. If you are interested on buying one, send me a PM and I will give you the details.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

I have the 14-24 and agree completely. It is amazing. The 16-35 is OK in the center, but the edges leave something to be desired. The 16-35 is superb in the center, but the edges are quite poor.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

I have the 14-24 and agree completely. It is amazing. The 16-35 is OK in the center, but the edges leave something to be desired. The 16-35 is superb in the center, but the edges are quite poor.

Bozsik Loc: Orangevale, California

shutterbob wrote:

OK. So I went and bought a Nikon D610 yesterday. I... (show quote)

16-35mm :thumbup: Great lens, easy to handle. Decent price.

shutterbob Loc: Tucson

OK......no fans of the 17-35, huh? So it sounds like if I don't mind lugging around a tank of a lens, the 14-24 is the way to go. But if I need (want) VR, a cheaper price and more portability then the 16-35 is a good lens as long as I don't need edge to edge sharpness. Starting to look like 14-24. Plus I really am becoming fond of f2.8 lenses.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

shutterbob wrote:

OK......no fans of the 17-35, huh? So it sounds like if I don't mind lugging around a tank of a lens, the 14-24 is the way to go. But if I need (want) VR, a cheaper price and more portability then the 16-35 is a good lens as long as I don't need edge to edge sharpness. Starting to look like 14-24. Plus I really am becoming fond of f2.8 lenses.

Shutterbob, take a look at reviews of the 14-24 - in particular, this one, which provides in depth analysis of the 14-24, and compares it to the 16-35, and the 17-35, 24-70 and the 24 prime.

http://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-14-24mm-f2-8g

shutterbob Loc: Tucson

Gene51 wrote:

Shutterbob, take a look at reviews of the 14-24 - in particular, this one, which provides in depth analysis of the 14-24, and compares it to the 16-35, and the 17-35, 24-70 and the 24 prime.

http://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-14-24mm-f2-8g

Checked it out. Maybe I need both. :shock: I like the edge to edge sharpness of the 14-24, but like the lighter weight and ability to take filters of the 16-35. As stated in the article, a ND filter is really useful in outdoor scenic photography. Oh well, a 24-70 is first on the list. Maybe by the time I am ready to buy an ultrawide Nikon will have come out with a 12-24 f1.8 that takes front filters and weighs under 2 pounds.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

shutterbob wrote:

Checked it out. Maybe I need both. :shock: I like the edge to edge sharpness of the 14-24, but like the lighter weight and ability to take filters of the 16-35. As stated in the article, a ND filter is really useful in outdoor scenic photography. Oh well, a 24-70 is first on the list. Maybe by the time I am ready to buy an ultrawide Nikon will have come out with a 12-24 f1.8 that takes front filters and weighs under 2 pounds.

I've got a 24-70 for sale as well - if you are interested, send me a PM and we can discuss the specifics. I have two, one was recently serviced at Nikon, both front and rear elements are new as is the front lens mount, the other one has not been serviced. Both are in 9+ - 10 condition, and have boxes, caps, paperwork etc. Let me know.

jkoar Loc: The Gunks, NY

I use the 14 - 24 zoom. Night time long exposures come out great. Want a shot of the milky way ... this is the lens. Daytime photos are crisp and colorful. It is big, heavy and takes no filter easily. So what! I put the case on my belt and lug the other stuff as well. I have not needed a filter on it. In short ... it rocks!!!!

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

There are filter options for the 14-24. Google it

Gobuster Loc: South Florida

I have the 16-35 F4 and don't find the edge sharpness an issue. here are a couple of shots taken recently, the edges look pretty good. I don't know if there would be a lot of difference at F4 (these were at F8). I'll have to try. Note the great depth of field and bear in mind the camera was focused on the center in both photos. And yes, this was shot on a full frame D600, results on crop frame cameras will have less field of View, but better edge sharpness. Overall, I think the 16-35 is a very good lens.

At 22mm F8 1/250 sec ISO 200

(Download)

At 17mm F8 1/400 sec ISO 200

(Download)

shutterbob Loc: Tucson

You guys aren't making this any easier. I guess what I need to do is rent them both and shoot them side by side.

amehta Loc: Boston

shutterbob wrote:

You guys aren't making this any easier. I guess what I need to do is rent them both and shoot them side by side.

Sometimes renting doesn't make sense, especially for relatively inexpensive lenses. But since these are in the $1-2k range, and how you want to use them makes such a difference, renting does make a lot of sense.

I also found Ken Rockwell's "How to Use Ultra-Wide Lenses" article very helpful when I first got a lens wider than 24mm.