Nikon D800 should i get 14-24 f2.8 for it or 16-35 f4 vr? Cant decide

[teigas]

My friend is going to sell his Nikon 14-24 f2.8 and offered my to buy it, for 169dollars cheaper than the askin prices online are at the moment in norway. So i am thinking about buying it from him and sell my Tokina 12 - 24 f4 dx glass.

So I am wondering if anyone have some experience with the 14 - 24 mm? I see they also sell the 16-35 f4 vr new for a little bit more money that i would have to pay for the gentle used 14-24.

I am having a hard time deciding what will the best buy, I can add that i Have the Nikon D800, and i own Nikon 70-200 f2.8 vr2, Nikon 24 -70mm f2.8, and the Nikon50mm 1,4. And the Tokina 12 - 24 f4 pro dx.

I have tried the 14-24 today and its sharp, and its sharp in the egdes, and i see that doing star trail pictures and stuff like that also will work great.
Her is an unedited shot at f8 on a tripod today. http://www.flickr.com/photos/teigas2...ream/lightbox/
My only concern is, that i also want to try to take long exporsure pictures like some rocks on the front and a silky sea. So then i do have to use more money on a filter adapter kit aswell? I guess?

The 16-35 f4 vr2 , is not that good for star trails and star pictures, but easyer to fit an a filter on. I also read that some say its sharper than the 14-24, and some people say its not, and some people say its not sharp in the egdes.

So i need some advice in the right direction. I mostly untill this day use wide angel lenses for car photos in golden hour, and some nature shots, the problem now is the Tokina i got is not fx, so would be nice to change it anyway. And i am thinking about experimenting with long exporsure shots, and perhaps some star trails.

So what do i do, i keep going back and forth, so would be nice with some tips and experiences

[Manfred M]

Welcome to CiC. You spent a lot of money on the D800, so you really do not want to be shooting with DX lenses; it's an FX camera.

I have the f/2.8 14-24 Nikkor (and the D800 and Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 vr2, Nikkor 24 -70mm f2.8) and it is a very nice lens; but has one major downside. You can't use filters on it (not totally true, there is a Lee kit made for this lens, but I have never used it), so that might be a bit of a limitation. I had a look at the f/4 16-35 Nikkor and really had trouble deciding which way to go, but ended up deciding I wanted the ultra-wide 14mm capability.

This shot was taken with the 14-24mm at 14mm; and has been gone through post-processing.

[Polar01]

Teigas welcome to CIC, now like Manfred I also am an ultra wide junkie, however I use a D600 with the 16-35mm f/4 with not problems at all. It is smaller, lighter and some say as sharp or sharper than the more expensive 14-24mm f/2.8 a difference of $600.00 here in Canada. You are correct that to fit any filter to it will cost you a lot more than if you get the 16-35mm as it takes a standard size 77mm filter. If one were to purchase the Lee system of filters they would be useable on all your present Nikkor lens. As I shoot mostly landscape off a tripod the extra cost of go to f/2.8 was not worth it for me as I could get away with slower glass.
Below is a image I took last weekend while out scouting new locations.

Cheers:

Allan

[teigas]

Thank you both for you input Hope others also have some experience and tips and personal experience

[AB26]

I am having a hard time deciding what will the best buy, I can add that i Have the Nikon D800, and i own Nikon 70-200 f2.8 vr2, Nikon 24 -70mm f2.8, and the Nikon50mm 1,4. And the Tokina 12 - 24 f4 pro dx.

I have tried the 14-24 today and its sharp, and its sharp in the egdes, and i see that doing star trail pictures and stuff like that also will work great.

Adding the 14-24 F2.8 to that combination, it sounds logical to me. You should know what the benefits are of the F2.8.

[Polar01]

Andre yes it sounds like a no brainer if you go that it is f/2.8, and yes 14mm is wider than 16mm. The difference between f/2.8 and f/4 is one stop, as most lens sweet spot is two stops down so f/5.6 vs f/8 still one stop difference.
14-24mm f/2.8
August 31, 2007
Cost 14-24mm in Canada approx. $2000.00
no VR function
Filter use Lee holder and a 2-stop GND filter $650.00 single filters $180.00
No CP filter foreseen in future
16-35mm f/4
February 09, 2010
Cost approx. $1600.00 Canadian
no need for special filters as those that fit the 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8 will work
VR function
smaller and lighter to work with

Both are very sharp lens, and are excellent purchases
both will give similar results under similar conditions,
overall difference is 2mm width and one stop
difference in cost $600.00
extra kit for filters $650.00 + additional filters $180.00
do the math $1250.00 is it worth is for 1-stop and 2mm, I think not.
now these prices are retail I do not know what they are on-line, however some lens I have looked at on-line are not much less that retail and sometimes are costing more.

Cheers:

Allan

[Manfred M]

Andre yes it sounds like a no brainer if you go that it is f/2.8, and yes 14mm is wider than 16mm. The difference between f/2.8 and f/4 is one stop, as most lens sweet spot is two stops down so f/5.6 vs f/8 still one stop difference.
14-24mm f/2.8
August 31, 2007
Cost 14-24mm in Canada approx. $2000.00
no VR function
Filter use Lee holder and a 2-stop GND filter $650.00 single filters $180.00
No CP filter foreseen in future
16-35mm f/4
February 09, 2010
Cost approx. $1600.00 Canadian
no need for special filters as those that fit the 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8 will work
VR function
smaller and lighter to work with

Both are very sharp lens, and are excellent purchases
both will give similar results under similar conditions,
overall difference is 2mm width and one stop
difference in cost $600.00
extra kit for filters $650.00 + additional filters $180.00
do the math $1250.00 is it worth is for 1-stop and 2mm, I think not.
now these prices are retail I do not know what they are on-line, however some lens I have looked at on-line are not much less that retail and sometimes are costing more.

Cheers:

Allan

And I obviously came to the opposite conclusion.

The extra 2mm on an ultrawide do make a lot of difference to (14mm vs 16mm),as does the extra stop wide open for some existing light interior shots. I rarely attempt to use a polarizer on anything below 24mm (banding in the sky), so no great deal and the type of shots I tend to do with it, especially at the narrower end means I probably wouldn't use a ND, although I am probably going to pick up the Lee filters and filter holder for this lens at some point (I have a number of them that I use on my other lenses; regular ND and GND; from 1 through 3 stops).

This shot was taken with the f/2.8 14-24 at 17mm. It is a composite of three individal shots at -2. 0, +2 brackets that were blended in Photoshop. Not HDRI, but I was able to bring out shadow detail and eliminate highlight clipping using clipping masks and layer masks. I had my GND filters along and shot some images with the f/2.8 24-70mm lens, but still assembled the images this way because I did not like the results I got with the GNDs.

[Polar01]

Manfred I agree with you completely, as you stated one very important fact something that teigas did not, the extra stop needed for some existing light interior shots, one stop extra can be helpful and I agree that there maybe sometimes where that extra 2mm comes in.
Your reply also supports my take on the subject. the above image 3 shots means you were on a tripod, if at f.2.8 at 17mm and lets say the subject was 80ft away then everything from 9.8ft to infinity was in focus, now if it was the 16-35mm f/4 set to 17mm same distance to subject than everything 7.2ft to infinity would be in focus. As for shutter speed because of the camera being mounted on a tripod it has no bearing on the shot. You could have just as well taken the same shot with a 16-35mm f/4 lens mounted to your D800 and gotten the same result of the above image.
It all depends on where and what the lens is needed for and how often it is needed. You shoot a number of images where you need that extra stop because of the existing lights, the extra width as the interior maybe a tight squeeze to fit completely in. As I shoot mainly outside I can work around having one less stop and the extra 2mm of width, one step back solves the width problem, and as the camera is on a tripod the lost of a that stop does not matter.
Nice image very good hand blending.

Cheers:

Allan

[bje07]

If it can help, (or trouble). I choose the 16-35 mm f:4 for the price and the weight. It's Ok for me , even if a 14-24 mm would be may be excellent, I prefer to be able to add a filter from time to time.

[Manfred M]

One of my favourite uses of an ultra-wide angle lens is for indoor work. These shots are taken with the Tokina f/2.8 11-16mm on the D90. When visiting museums and other historic buildings, it's often difficult to get an effective shot because of all of the people around, so the fast ultra-wides have been part of my gear for many years. My first ultra-wide rectilinear lens was the Leitz f/2.8 19mm Elmarit-R (which was the widest non-fisheye for the R body when I bought it).

Anyways, case in point - the Mona Lisa is a popular item at the Louvre, unless your shoot ultra-wide, when the place looks almost empty, except for a few bored looking guards.





Stepping back (and again shooting with an ultra-wide) can make the room look busier than it really was.





Handheld shot and fast glass was required for both shots....

[bje07]

other views inside with some corrections with Lightroom 5

Galerie Vivienne in Paris

Passage des Panoramas

[teigas]

Thanks for the input Bought the 14-24 since i got it cheaper than online asking prices: Her are a few fast test shots before i decided: http://www.teigen.be/blogg/?p=6321 . If I dont like it i just sell it again for the same price, after i have tried the 16-35 later this year, when my friend returns from holliday. (had to act fast on the 14-24 for the good price).