14-24mm vs 16-35mm on D700

I'd like to know what people think that have tried both, even if only topside. I've seen a couple people post that they have both but had yet to try out the 16-35mm UW. I need to add an FX superwide to my arsenal asap.

I've been ready to buy the 14-24mm for a while but the 16-35mm is holding me up. 35mm would be more useful UW but I make my living shooting topside and 2.8 is almost critical. Though the D700's iso performance is good enough to handle an f/4 in low light so i'm tempted.....

I'm also shooting with an aquatica 9.25" megadome so mushy corners are less of an issue, can bump up the iso and aperture with the D700 too.

Any thoughts would be appreciated. Cheers,

Chris

I'd like to know what people think that have tried both, even if only topside. I've seen a couple people post that they have both but had yet to try out the 16-35mm UW. I need to add an FX superwide to my arsenal asap.

 

I've been ready to buy the 14-24mm for a while but the 16-35mm is holding me up. 35mm would be more useful UW but I make my living shooting topside and 2.8 is almost critical. Though the D700's iso performance is good enough to handle an f/4 in low light so i'm tempted.....

 

I'm also shooting with an aquatica 9.25" megadome so mushy corners are less of an issue, can bump up the iso and aperture with the D700 too.

 

Any thoughts would be appreciated. Cheers,

 

Chris

The 14-24 is a great lens but I think the 16-35 is a more useable general purpose lens. Topside the 14-24 does not tolerate any vertical tilt for example without significant distortion, so is more sensitive to proper alignment when shooting if you want to avoid distortion. Underwater the 16-35 is also more 'user friendly', working well behind any large dome, with the best corners I have seen from a wide rectilinear with my Subal FE2 dome, no diopter needed. The 14-24 is a wonderful landscape lens, but I think is a more special purpose lens than the 16-35 topside, and definitely more limited with regard to corner sharpness than the 16-35 underwater.

The VR featuret of the 16-35 I think more than compensates for the 1 stop difference in maximum aperture between the 2 lenses.

I vote 16-35mm. I have posted quite a few pix from this lens on Facebook over the last few months (including from today) and I hope to write a review on it at some point. Although with relatively few FX/Nikon shooters, it is not top of the to-do list!

Alex

Well if really depends on what you shoot too. I compared the 16-35 to the 14-24 when I was looking for a super wide topside people shooter. I was shooting people, often @ f2.8. Unlike Jeff, I found the 16-35 VR to have slightly more barrel distortion @ 16 than the 14-24 @ 14mm. There's also slight light dropoff on the 16 wide open. The brighter VF was also very nice to look through.

Another important reason why I skipped the 16-35VR was because of corner sharpness wide open. It wasn't nearly as sharp as the 14-24 @ all focal lengths wide open. And the extra 2mm gives that that flexibility in shooting in tighter spaces. For topside super wide esp wide open, the 14-24 is the better lens. Less distortion and better corners but if you use filters like grads, you need to use really big filters. Also while the VR is nice for landscapes, the extra stop gives you the higher shutter speed for moving subjects like people.

For underwater use, the 16-35 is definitely more user friendly from corners to focal length. However, if you want wide angle rectilinear shots and not care about corners as much, the 14-24 will let you get closer and wider.

But if you need f2.8 for work, then that sort of settles it, doesn't it? That's why I went with the 14-24.

I don't disagree with your assessment Drew; I happen to have both lenses. I was not really referring to the normal barrel distortion of the lenses but to the fact that the superwide 14-24 is less forgiving with regard to perspective distortion if one shoots up or down at something. It's a fantastic lens, but if I only had the choice of one lens I think the 16-35 is a more useful general use lens for both underwater and topside. Obviously it depends on what one shoots, just don't find I use my 14-24 that much, finding the longer zoom to 35 more valuable than the 2mm on the wide side topside and underwater; but for landscapes the 14-24 is spectacular.

Jeff, maybe I'm just accustomed to the distortion from uwa rectilinear lenses, having used the Sigma 12-24 on full frame for so long before. Not just for architecture and landscapes, the 14-24 really is a gem when it comes to enclosed spaces. For general shooting, the 16-35 is definitely more useful. My 16-35 is almost fixture on my 5D2, besides the 24-105. ButI shouldn't really say more, since I've recently dumped most of the Nikon gear already anyways.

thanks for all the suggestions. i've pulled the trigger on the 16-35mm today as i need it for a commercial in water shoot (don't get many of those!) next week.

i'll be sure to post my thoughts on the lens once i've put it though its paces. still itching a bit for 14mm and 2.8 though.... but 35mm is very useful and so is $600. cheers,

chris

thanks for all the suggestions. i've pulled the trigger on the 16-35mm today as i need it for a commercial in water shoot (don't get many of those!) next week.

 

i'll be sure to post my thoughts on the lens once i've put it though its paces. still itching a bit for 14mm and 2.8 though.... but 35mm is very useful and so is $600. cheers,

 

chris

You will need a long extension 65-70mm; I think you will be very pleased for pool work.