I have the 14-24 and as we know, it does not take filters, save for the ones made by Lee. I have used Lee in the past and like them. Does the Lee filter system made for the 14-24 work as well as their other filter systems?
The other option is to buy a 16-35 which accepts filters. However, I need to buy two polorizer filters because mine are damaged and no longer fit well.
My plan is to photograph Zion National park, so this will require grad filters and a polorizer.
1. The 14-24 will have distortion at the wider angles.
2. with the Lee system I can use grads, but will it accept a Polorizer ( I know it would have to be a large Lee)
1. Practical zoom range; not many landscapes will require anything less than 16, but what about those slot canyons?
2. Accepts filters; still need the Lee system for grads, but I can use my graduated ND.
Cost: $1259 for yet another lens.
Which lens will give me the sharpest most accurate image? I will shoot with a D3x.
What is in my experience with both: Lee filter for 14-24 is usable, but must be immaculate clean - due to great DOF of that lens every piece of dust will be delivering big head ache and time consuming in the front of monitor. Very flare prone, too. Pola filters is not practical over 14-24, they can't cover all of field so wide. Geometrical distortions are not very important factor for landscapes, I believe. The 16-35 is a hair less sharp, but in my use pola from 28 and up is important. For slot canyons - old cities, as for me - only once or twice in lifetime I needed wider than 15-16, but it just me. Graduated ND - good solution. VR is a great factor, so I let my 14-24 go. 28-35 is more important for me than 14. It is my way, your will be different. Good luck! Dimitri.
A polarizer is a problem at angles wider than 24 to 28mm. So usign a polarizer on the 14-24 should not be a consideration.
ND Grads work west using something like the Lee or Cokin system where you can adjust up or down, as well as rotate if needed.
Your other choice, or course, is to skip the ND grads and shoot HDR brackets. Depending on conditions, it may be a better choice.
I've taken some wonderful landscapes with the 14-24 without any filters. In my opinion, the complaints about this lens not taking filters are really meaningless, except for possibly wanting to use a strong ND for really slow shutter speeds. In that case, hole the filter in front of the lens.
Assuming you are also going to take your 28-70 and have a polarizer for it, I do not see the need for a new lens (This recommendation being totally pointless in the face of NAS>)
No new lens sounds good to me, thank you. I need to buy new polorizers but that is a lot less than a new lens. If a polorizer has issues wider than 24, then my 28-700 will be fine, as you said.
I tend to prefer grads to HDR, but I've done both and will continue with that concept; nice to have options. If I need an ND, then I can use my LEE ND, or my variable ND on the 28-70.
Something else to consider is my style. I like tight, close shots. I plan to use my 70-200 and even my 600 for landscapes. So, why am I even concerned about the wider angles? Because I have seen some fantastic images taken with a wide and I'd like to emulate those? Also, Zion has some tight places where a wide might be better to use.
Thank you for you thoughts on this. I will not buy a new lens and will buy two polorizers; one for the 70-200 and one for the 28-70.
I have been using the 14-24 for over four years and never felt the need for filters. CPL filters are of limited use for wa and instead of ND filters you can always use exposure blending. The distortions of the 14-24 are easily corrected, I use DxO Pro. If you want to have the ultimate in sharpness, micro contrast and color rendition, have a look at the Zeiss 25/2, 21/2.8 or 15/2.8 - they all take filters.
Well now, this give me pause. My goal is sharp images that can be enlarged to . . . BIG! Hmm, maybe, just maybe this is the solution.
I can't afford an assortment of Zeiss lenses so I need to make the right choice, if a Zeiss lens is a consideration, and it seems to be so.
The best approach is to go to Zion and shoot with what I have and evaluate my needs. You know me, I've been here a long time; it is apparent how I approach photography: get the gear, get more gear, study the techniques, try to figure out procedures and understand the process. Alas, this is my brain works. I need to get out a shoot more and ponder less.
When I have some exposure to what Zion has to offer, then I can make a decision.
Thank you, I can see that is this the path that I might take. I just need to evaluate it further.
My inclination would be that the 14-24 is fine for Zion.
I do find value in a CP on an ultrawide - but not if wide skies are involved. The CP is to control reflections on water, foliage, and even rocks. So the filter threads of a 16-35 do have value.
The VR of the 16-35 also has some value when a tripod can't provide complete stability. For example, handheld images, shooting from a canoe, or even shooting from a tripod in moving water are situations that benefit from VR. You might see some benefit in narrow slot canyons trying to position the camera. And the 16-35 is a good bit lighter - a positive for travel and hiking.
The biggest disadvantage of the 16-35 is soft corners on FX. The 14-24 is noticeably better.
I think the 16-35 has some value - especially in the east where you have streams, waterfalls, and a lot more rain. But for Zion - the 14-24 is probably just fine.
Honestly... I would buy the 16-35. I faced this same issue before I went to Acadia National Park. I ended up with the 14-24. I used it for about 5 night shots and that was it. The expense of the lens kept me from getting a very expensive filtering system so I used my 24-70 for almost all the shots. If I had gotten the 16-35 I'd have used that and wouldn't be selling it like I am the 14-24.
Do yourself a favor and go with the 16-35 unless you can justify the reason for the 14-24.
Neil - I think Bob already has the 14-24, so a 16-35 would be in addition. I don't disagree with your logic and if he did not have the 14-24 the incremental cost benefit of the 14-24 might produce a different conclusion.
I do think the decision is a tradeoffs between filters and a little corner sharpness. On DX the 16-35 is great, but the lack of corner sharpness is visible on FX bodies. I think in Zion specifically the lack of a CP is not a big issue. In other parks like the Smokies, filters are quite important.
Yes, I own the 14-24; the 16-35 would be new addition. Or, as someone mentioned, a Zeiss prime might serve me better than the 16-35 and it takes filters. However, my preference is to not make a purchase unless I need to in order to get the quality of the photos that I want to get.
Tue 04-Dec-12 06:34 AM | edited Tue 04-Dec-12 06:36 AM by richardd300
I bought the 14-24mm as my first Nikon Pro lens and fitted it on my then D300. Good as it was on DX, when I moved up to FX it was extraordinary. However, that in itself brought certain limitations.
Firstly, I found at 14mm for landscapes it was just too wide, although for tight space architectural shots a perfect solution. In many respects the 24-70mm met most of my requirements. However, I still needed a wider angle and more importantly, filter capability for ND multi stop long shutter work. As said the Lee filters were very expensive. In the end I sold my 14-24mm here in Nikonians and bought the 16-35mm. I used the 14-24 on my D700, but on my D800 it really shines. There is a slight difference in IQ, this is totally acceptable. If I'd known how little difference the 2mm makes to me, should the 16-35 been available I would have bought that.
I have never regretted this decision. I now achieve much more flexibility with this lens and although I almost exclusively tripod mount the VR function has been an added bonus at times.
I haven't missed my 14-24mm. The bulbous lens on the 14-24mm and the possibility of damage made me very nervous
0510 102 - Copy by longzoom, on Flickr. I have very bad habit to argumenting with images/crops. It is 16-35, which only a hair is not as sharp as 14-24. Very decent lens, in my experience the old 17-35 is far away. To be exact and honest, I am not able to see any significant difference between 14-24 and 16-35 in the lab. The hair, maybe. Dimitri
>Neil - I think Bob already has the 14-24, so a 16-35 would be >in addition. I don't disagree with your logic and if he did >not have the 14-24 the incremental cost benefit of the 14-24 >might produce a different conclusion. > >I do think the decision is a tradeoffs between filters and a >little corner sharpness. On DX the 16-35 is great, but the >lack of corner sharpness is visible on FX bodies. I think in >Zion specifically the lack of a CP is not a big issue. In >other parks like the Smokies, filters are quite important. > >Eric Bowles >Nikonians Team >My Gallery >Workshops > >Nikonians membership — my most important photographic >investment, after the camera Eric, I believe to say about the lack of corner sharpness of the 16-35 lens, you should add - my sample of 16-35. My copy of this lens is not showing any lack of sharpness to corners. Dimitri.
This review confirms what Eric says - that the 16-35mm suffers from a little corner softness on FX when used wide open at the 16mm end. My copy exhibits similar tendencies, though I certainly wouldn't class it as a problem.
20100625-Copy of 0610 115-2-3 by longzoom, on Flickr. There is the image taken with D3(not D800!) 16-35 at most critical 16mm, 2 crops of 100% and 400%. The image was test only for the new BW filter. Dimitri.
Eric's topic I used to answer said nothing about wide-open performance - the things in whole what he believs. I'll prepare test for the 16-35 lens on D800, wide open (never ever need to use 16mm at any zoom wide open, even great 14-24 is noticable softer at 14mm wide open, its absolutely noncence and torture situation for so wide lens, but if you wish so...). Dimitri.
I don't think the sharpness is a big problem - especially with the perspective of the huge field of view with an ultrawide. You have to expect softness with a 90+ degree field of view.
For me, the positives outweigh the negatives. And a case can be made for having both the 14-24 and the 16-35 for different reasons.
Back to the original post, if I had the 14-24 already and liked it, it's tough to make the case for adding a 16-35 without very specific needs. In my case, I have specific reasons favoring the 16-35 over the 14-24 but it does involve tradeoffs. In my case, cost was not a factor in my choice of the 16-35 over the 14-24.
I do not trust any test, performed by anyone, not for the reason of lack of professionalism or scills, God forbid! Sample variatons, very huge sometimes, as it was with 80-400 or first bunch of the 28-300, is keeping me away to believe in it. My eyes, my hands, my copy of the lens. Nothing and nobody else. You may be sceptical on that, but it is just me and my way for 55 years in pro photography. Dimitri.
I have to admit Dimitri that having owned both lenses I do have to accept that with the aperture wide open at 16mm and in fact wide open at 35mm, albeit much less noticeable, there is an obvious corner softening. It is most noticeable when I take architectural shots which contain brick or stone work at the edges.
This is not a show stopper for me as the benefits of using the 16-35mm against the 14-24mm is that I can use ND long exposure filters. Plus it has VR.
I was always pleased with the results of the 14-24mm, but I am also very pleased with the 16-35mm. There's always some trade off Yes, I agree the losses of the 14-24mm are marginal and minimal, for me at least.
I don't own either of them but tried both on my D800 recently. the 16-35 is very light and portable (one of the few pro nikkors with mixed plastic/metal construction). It will take smaller, less expensive and more portable filter systems.
However, if I already owned the 14-24 then it will cost a bit less to buy a filter system for the 14-24 than to buy the 16-35 + filters. One important consideration is portability though. If you will have to hump this lot over long distances and rough ground on foot I would be worried about weight and protecting those large filters from damage. If shooting in close proximity to transport then it will be more practical.
>Rather than a gradient filter on the lens, I make good use of >the gradient filter function in the new CS6 (It's the same in >LR4) PP software. It's included for free! You see, I did try it. looks a bit cartoonish, is not as a real filtration, as for me, of course. So how do you like the result? THX! Dimitri
After reading all of these replies, I decided to not spend the money for the 16-35. Although I prefer to use Grad filters on the lens, I also use grads in Lightroom. So with the 14-24 I will either not need filters, as has been suggested, or I can make the adjustment in LR, as has also been suggested. If after using it on location I determine that a filter set is needed, a filter set for the 14-24 is available.
Another consideration is shooting style. I tend to like images taken with a telephoto lens; I like close, tight shots with a simple composition. I now wonder how many of the shots I take will be wider than 28mm, and I have a 28-70; although it is an old lens and this lens an odd barrel quirk, as any who have used this lens knows.
I hope to get to Zion within the next few weeks and I will post some shots taken with the 14-24. I will also take a 600mm.
I wish to thank everyone who replied; this thread is one of many examples of the 'respectful passion' that makes 'Nikonians' the best forum on the web.
I think you made the right choice. I rented a 16-35 and was luke warm on it. It's a nice lens and the VR works well. But I don't think the build quality (semi-pro level at best) is appropriate for the price. It's built like a $600-800 lens at best...light and a bit delicate feeling.
Thu 06-Dec-12 04:44 AM | edited Thu 06-Dec-12 05:06 AM by moizes
>You say that the software grad is cartoonish. But I >challenge you to point out the other "cartoonish" >ones that have been posted. Software grad ND is not always >poorly used.
20121205-048-3 by longzoom, on Flickr That is what I agree with you without any reservations. I've spent about 5 more hours, and I believe I can manage it now. So I am posting the image I used an artificial filters on it. THX!(BTW, it is an area I am living in, after "Sandy")> Dimitri