Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Going wide on Nikon D800e (14-24 vs 16-35)  (Read 4581 times)
Mike Guilbault
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 791



WWW
« on: October 06, 2013, 10:52:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Been shooting professionally for 25+ years and my wide angle of choice has been the AF-S 17-35mm 2.8 Nikkor. I've been pleased with the results but would like to get a little wider.  I've read tons of review on the 14-24mm and how great it is - except for the filter problem.  Matt K wrote an article on how he replaced his 14-24 with the new 16-35mm f/4 and claims sharpness is excellent. 

I haven't looked through the 16-35 yet, but doubt the 1mm difference from my 17-35 will satisfy my extreme wide cravings. Yet, I would love to be able to use my Lee system of grads and 'Big Stopper'.  Is the sharpness of the 16-35 superior to the 17-35?

Or, is there a 14mm prime that compares to the 14-24 for sharpness and distortion?  I could use that for my extreme wides and just keep my 17-35 for everything else.

Logged

Mike Guilbault
MG Photography
Paul2660
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1415


WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 06, 2013, 11:11:17 PM »
ReplyReply

If you don't mind primes either the Zeiss 21mm F2.8 or the Zeiss 18mm F3.5 are excellent, I have the 18mm and have found it a great lens, light weight and easy to filter. 

Zooms, I can't speak to the 17-35, but have used the 14-24 for almost 2 years now and it's still my main lens on the D800e.  Many bemoan this lens, but I personally love it.  It has pro's and con's to consider.

Pro

1.  Excellent from F2.8 to around F11 maybe F14 on the D800e. This is still my main night lens which I use from F2.8 to F 4 and it's the best wide I have found at 14mm wide open.  In the F6.3 to F11 range mine is really just amazing. 
2.  Fairly easy to manually focus as focus ring has a good fine degree of movement

Con

1.  Flare, can be terrible and it's the type that ruins an image, doesn't add to it, tend to be a harsh magenta band
2.  Weight, it's heavy and large and on day's I hiking far, I don't carry it and bring the Zeiss 18mm
3.  Doesn't play well with filters unless you purchase the special Lee setup.  Hightech also makes one.  I have the Lee and it's great.  You can easily use a CL-PL with a slight adjustment to the Lee holder.  It's the only way I know to use a CL-PL with the 14-24mm
4.  Huge outer element which requires special care not to scratch

My cons are more than pros but I still love the lens.  The Canon 16-35 I have can't touch this lens from 14mm to around 30mm especially wide open.  If you are going to want to shoot at night (where F2.8 tends to be needed) the 14-24 is great.  Also a great all round landscape lens.

I tried the 16-35 and just didn't like it, felt a bit on the cheap side, more plastic less metal, it's less weight than the 14-24 however.  Years ago when I was shooting the Nikon D1 and D1x (remember those, 2.74mp @ 4.5K and 6mp at 5K) I used the 17-35 and thought it a great lens.  But I have not shot it on the D800 family.  It's smaller than the 14-24 but as I remember not much lighter.  Takes a 77mm filter however which comes in really really handy.

Paul Caldwell
Logged

Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
Photography > http://photosofarkansas.com
Blog> http://paulcaldwellphotography.com
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2349


« Reply #2 on: October 07, 2013, 03:57:49 AM »
ReplyReply

I have both (14-24 & 16-35). I have not used my 14-24 anymore since I got the 16-35. I think that is pretty telling.

Both lenses are great lenses. The 16-35 has a feel of lesser built quality but I have never wrecked any of these type of Nikon lenses to begin with so that is kind of a moot point for me.
The 16-35 does show a pretty big amount of distortion at 16mm, after correction it is really good but the downside is that you will loose some real estate at the edges making it less than 16mm...
The 16-35 is sharp and has a nice rendition, IMO.

I really like the fact the 16-35 has VR, it has been a great help in certain situations. Interior shots that can be taken at 1/4th with lower ISO out of the hand and sharp corner to corner. Not everyone will need to do this or use it in that way.
Logged
Mike Guilbault
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 791



WWW
« Reply #3 on: October 07, 2013, 09:34:46 AM »
ReplyReply

I remember the D1 and D1x very well Paul... had'em both - along with the 17-35 that's still going strong.

I used Zeiss when I had Hasselblads years ago so familiar with their quality, but 21mm and 18mm are not wide enough. If I'm going to lose "real estate at the edges making it less than 16mm" then I may as well keep the 17-35.  Since I shoot on tripod all the time, the VR doesn't interest me.

I live on Georgian Bay, Ontario, so shoot a lot of sunsets.  That flare might be problem too. 

Decisions decisions
Logged

Mike Guilbault
MG Photography
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3019


« Reply #4 on: October 07, 2013, 09:52:45 AM »
ReplyReply

I live on Georgian Bay, Ontario, so shoot a lot of sunsets.  That flare might be problem too.

Hi Mike,

Have you considered selecting the most flare resistent lens, and stitching? By using a slightly longer focal length, you also increase resolution due to the larger magnification factor. A three or four image (portrait orientation) single row stitch also requires very little additional equipment to carry along, and if needed you can add exposure tiles for an even wider FOV. You can also use a fixed focal length lens, often having lower weight, and fewer lens elements/groups for increased contrast.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2349


« Reply #5 on: October 07, 2013, 10:37:17 AM »
ReplyReply

If really wide is needed, you are working on a tripod another option could be the ZF2 15mm?
Logged
Peter McLennan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1628


« Reply #6 on: October 07, 2013, 10:37:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Have you tested the Samyang 14?

I've frequently shot with the sun in the image and flare is very well controlled.
Its admittedly-intimidating geometric distortion is completely eliminated by LR.  
It's very sharp nearly corner to corner.
It's lightweight, well made and inexpensive.  
It works beautifully on my D800 with wide-open metering and XIF data retained.

And best of all, it's really fun to use. : )
Logged
Paul2660
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1415


WWW
« Reply #7 on: October 07, 2013, 01:53:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Good point on the Samyang, Rokinon Bower 14mm.  Excellent lens, very will priced, light weight.  No AF and I have never found a filter solution for it.  Tried to adapt a Lee setup but the tulip shade was just too much. 

But for the price, I agree excellent solution and LR does a great job on the distortion.   You can buy the Nikon and use it on Canon bodies with a standard mount adapter. 

Paul Caldwell
Logged

Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
Photography > http://photosofarkansas.com
Blog> http://paulcaldwellphotography.com
Ed Foster, Jr.
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 216


WWW
« Reply #8 on: October 07, 2013, 02:03:07 PM »
ReplyReply

+1 on the Zeiss - an outstanding lens - tripod or handheld!

Ed

Logged

Ed Foster, Jr.
www.edfoster.net
Torbjörn Tapani
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 41


Re:
« Reply #9 on: October 07, 2013, 03:35:46 PM »
ReplyReply

The 16-35 is a far more versatile lens but for my use I opted for the 14-24. Less distortion and sharper corners.

I do a lot of night shots, astro, auroras. In hindsight the Samyang 14 would have worked nicely with very little coma and you don't notice distortion in the sky so much.
Logged
Mike Guilbault
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 791



WWW
« Reply #10 on: October 08, 2013, 06:53:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Will the ZF2 15mm accept the Lee system?
Logged

Mike Guilbault
MG Photography
Paul2660
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1415


WWW
« Reply #11 on: October 08, 2013, 02:08:33 PM »
ReplyReply

The Samyang, bower etc. are a bit tricky at night at least if you are stacking or shooting the Milky way, as here you need F2.8 or better.  I have used the 14mm on the D800 and 6D, and at F2.8 on the Nikon the one I had was very soft in the corners and still had a bit of corner coma (butterfly wings in stars), center was still very good and just a bit of center coma (full color ring around star).  Same lens on the 6D with an adapter did much better on the 6D I am assuming mainly due resolution differences. The 14-24 at 14mm at F2.8 is a much better performer, basically Zero Coma center or corner and only soft in the corners if you are pulling in landscape elements but still very good.  Once again you have to watch for moon flare as it will happen and can really ruin a long stack sequence. Flare on the 14mm Samyang is possible but it's not so destructive as on the 14-24.  By destructive I mean the flare is so harsh that you really can't fix it and in a night sky it can be very very damaging creating a UFO looking object that elongates as the moon moves.  Flare buster is a must have.

The lens that scores high for me is the Rokinon 24mm 1.4 as it truly outperforms Nikon's 24mm 1.4 in every aspect from 1.4 to 3.2.  Excellent night optic.  The Nikon has terrible Coma both center and side, side is pretty much a deal killer for any night work. 

The above is based on my actual use, in night shooting with the D800e and 6D.

Paul Caldwell
Logged

Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
Photography > http://photosofarkansas.com
Blog> http://paulcaldwellphotography.com
langier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 603



WWW
« Reply #12 on: October 08, 2013, 08:03:38 PM »
ReplyReply

I've got both the 17-35 2.8 and the 14-24 2.8 on my D800. I usually will grab the 17-35 before the 14-24 since it's smaller, lighter and doesn't get flare from behind. Been shooting with the 17-35 since it first was available back in film days and it still keeps going and going and the image quality is still good.

I thought about getting the 16-35 since it had VR and was a newer build, but I think it's a little longer than the 17-35 and in shooting people under low light, that extra stop comes in more handy than VR and an extra millimeter of width for me.

I can tell you that both these lenses are super on the D800 and probably that the 14-24 is a bit better overall. I do like the field of view and sharpness that I get with it but when I travel, it's just too big and heavy. That's when I simply pack a fisheye to get wider and then compose to minimize distortion or simply use it to my advantage. The fisheye takes little space and doesn't weight too much and between that and the 17-35 creates a smaller and lighter package than the 14-24.

Logged

Larry Angier
ASMP, NAPP, ACT, and many more!

Webmaster, RANGE magazine
Editor emeritus, NorCal Quarterly

web--http://www.angier-fox.photoshelter.com
facebook--larry.angier
twitter--#larryangier
google+LarryAngier
Mike Guilbault
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 791



WWW
« Reply #13 on: October 09, 2013, 09:13:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Glad to hear the 17-35 is doing well for you too Larry.  I was considering the the Zeiss 15mm - at least it'll accept a 95mm filter... but with the fixed lens shade I don't believe it'll accept the Lee system. More reason to stick with my 17-35 I suppose.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2013, 09:56:27 PM by Mike Guilbault » Logged

Mike Guilbault
MG Photography
langier
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 603



WWW
« Reply #14 on: October 09, 2013, 11:36:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Mike,

It's really hard to beat the 17-35mm, especially since it takes pretty standard filters. With good craft, this is one pretty good combo IMO.

I'll be shooting another facet of my nest museum exhibit tomorrow with my D800 and 17-35 in the morning and I know if I use good technique and craft the images will be super for the show.

Logged

Larry Angier
ASMP, NAPP, ACT, and many more!

Webmaster, RANGE magazine
Editor emeritus, NorCal Quarterly

web--http://www.angier-fox.photoshelter.com
facebook--larry.angier
twitter--#larryangier
google+LarryAngier
k bennett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1411


WWW
« Reply #15 on: October 10, 2013, 06:46:50 AM »
ReplyReply

I've had pretty good results with the Sigma 12-24 (version 1) on a Canon full frame camera. It's sharp when stopped down*, has good distortion control for a super-super wide, and very little purple fringing. And 12mm should satisfy your craving for wiiiiiiiide. Also, it's relatively cheap.

*f/11 or f/16 seems best from my experience. It's not a journalism lens.
Logged

Equipment: a camera and some lenses.
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad