Even though we ARE Nikon lovers,we are NOT affiliated with Nikon Corp. in any way.

English German French

Sign up Login
Home Forums Articles Galleries Recent Photos Contest Help Search News Workshops Shop Upgrade Membership Recommended
members
All members Wiki Contests Vouchers Apps Newsletter THE NIKONIAN™ Magazines Podcasts Fundraising

16-35mm vs wide-angle prime

nrothschild

US
10916 posts

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this author

"RE: 16-35mm vs wide-angle prime"

nrothschild Neil is an expert in several areas, including camera support Registered since 25th Jul 2004
Mon 18-Feb-13 09:44 AM | edited Mon 18-Feb-13 09:46 AM by nrothschild

I have shot the 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 for many years now. When I got around to solving my ultra-wide problem I considered the 16-35 and 14-24.

I like the "two kings" I have now, and interestingly, at least at the time I could have bought a mint 14-24 used for only a couple of hundred more than the 16-35. At the time there were 2 or 3 for sale right here, and at least one from someone I would have been very comfortable buying a nice used lens from.

(I think it says something that there appear to be an excessive amount of "hardly ever used" 14-24's floating about. Not that it is a bad lens- it is certainly one of the finest made. But I suspect it is more of a niche lens than many people realize, at least for typical needs)

I decided to buy the 16-35, mainly because I did not want to fall off the bottomless cliff of the very expensive filter systems needed for the 14-24. The idea of spending $1K for a starter set was not appealing. Just moving from P size to 100mm size rectangular filters was painful enough!

After buying the 16-35 and using it a bit, I realized that it makes a very nice two lens combo with the 70-200. Although there is a world between 35mm and 70mm, in most cases I can work around that gap.

I've always had a bit of a problem when "forced" to carry 3 big lenses. I find that the 3rd lens is far more cumbersome. So a big benefit of the 16-35 is that I can stay with the 2 lenses I am used to carrying, but my focal length range is greatly expanded. You mention travel and this might be very applicable to that.

It is so effective that the 24-70 is becoming the "odd man out". I don't think I could do the same with the 14-24. I think there is a huge difference between 24 and 35mm on FX. At 35mm I can make it act somewhat "normal" (like 50ish). I can't really do that at 24mm.

I don't consider VR a "must have" in that focal length range, but it is certainly a nice tool to have in the box.

If you have never shot wider than 18mm/DX, you may find 16mm FX to be very difficult to use effectively in many cases. It takes a very well thought out foreground subject of interest. And for that reason it is very nice to have a zoom for landscapes. Sometimes 16 is just too wide!

_________________________________
Neil


my Nikonians gallery.

This is a hot, active topic! 16-35mm vs wide-angle prime [View all] , bluerose , Sun 17-Feb-13 04:55 PM
Subject
ID
Reply message RE: 16-35mm vs wide-angle prime
1
Reply message RE: 16-35mm vs wide-angle prime
2
Reply message RE: 16-35mm vs wide-angle prime
3
     Reply message RE: 16-35mm vs wide-angle prime
4
     Reply message RE: 16-35mm vs wide-angle prime
6
     Reply message RE: 16-35mm vs wide-angle prime
8
     Reply message RE: 16-35mm vs wide-angle prime
30
          Reply message RE: 16-35mm vs wide-angle prime
35
Reply message RE: 16-35mm vs wide-angle prime
5
Reply message RE: 16-35mm vs wide-angle prime
7
Reply message RE: 16-35mm vs wide-angle prime
9
     Reply message RE: 16-35mm vs wide-angle prime
10
          Reply message RE: 16-35mm vs wide-angle prime
11
               Reply message RE: 16-35mm vs wide-angle prime
12
                    Reply message RE: 16-35mm vs wide-angle prime
13
                    Reply message RE: 16-35mm vs wide-angle prime
16
                         Reply message RE: 16-35mm vs wide-angle prime
19
                         Reply message RE: 16-35mm vs wide-angle prime
34
                    Reply message RE: 16-35mm vs wide-angle prime
14
                         Reply message RE: 16-35mm vs wide-angle prime
15
                         Reply message RE: 16-35mm vs wide-angle prime
17
                              Reply message RE: 16-35mm vs wide-angle prime
18
Reply message RE: 16-35mm vs wide-angle prime
20
Reply message RE: 16-35mm vs wide-angle prime
21
Reply message RE: 16-35mm vs wide-angle prime
22
Reply message RE: 16-35mm vs wide-angle prime
24
Reply message RE: 16-35mm vs wide-angle prime
25
Reply message RE: 16-35mm vs wide-angle prime
26
     Reply message RE: 16-35mm vs wide-angle prime
27
Reply message RE: 16-35mm vs wide-angle prime
33
Reply message RE: 16-35mm vs wide-angle prime
36
     Reply message RE: 16-35mm vs wide-angle prime
37
Reply message RE: 16-35mm vs wide-angle prime
28
Reply message RE: 16-35mm vs wide-angle prime
29
Reply message RE: 16-35mm vs wide-angle prime
31
Reply message RE: 16-35mm vs wide-angle prime
32