Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Sun Jan 22, 2017 8:32 am

All times are UTC

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

What to test next?
Nikon AF-S VR 16-35/4.0G vs. AF-S 14-24/2.8G 24%  24%  [ 5 ]
micro Nikkors comparison including the new 40mm 57%  57%  [ 12 ]
Nikon AF-S VR 24-120/4.0G vs. AF-S 24-70/2.8G 19%  19%  [ 4 ]
The new Nikon AF-S VRII 80-400/4.5-5.6G (hehe, gotcha!) 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Total votes : 21
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 11:49 am 

Joined: Thu Oct 08, 2009 11:24 am
Posts: 1831
The wide angle comparison would be like reinventing the wheel. You don't see many Micro comparisons though.

16-35 is generally regarded as better than the 17-35, with added VR, capable of taking 77mm filters (compared to enormous extra cost of a Lee kit for the 14-24), but has significant distortion at the wide end and is nowhere near as good optically as the 14-24.

So if you're prepared to take it's limitations (zoom range, lack of filters, large partially exposed front bulb element, extra cost) the 14-24 whips it.

And whips every other zoom wide angle out there. The only comparible lens, which renders better, is the 21mm Zeiss, but that's fixed focal length and with slight moustache distortion (which you won't notice unless you're shooting horizons)

Case closed! :)

Last edited by dubaiphil on Tue Sep 13, 2011 12:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 12:09 pm 
From the tests & samples I saw,the 16-35mm F4 is not that amazing. It looses some resolution on the borders & corners of photos,which is annoying for people that are after great detailed landscapes,cityscapes etc.
I always advice Nikon photographers (amateurs with money,because pros always know what to buy) to get the 14-24,because there's so substitute to that quality.

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:12 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 11:08 pm
Posts: 8003
Location: Germany
I know form the charts that the 16-35 is behind the 14-24 in some measures. But what I always miss in tests is the use of an identical challenging test-target where you can get a real feeling for the type of IQ-difference between two lenses. That's why Gordon uses the Remarkables and other repeat targets, and I use Siemens-stars.
So it would be interesting to see how the theoretical performance differences translate into real-life quality differences.
And I think that the 2mm disadvantage of the 16-35 at the wide end is often compensated for by the extra 9mm at the long end - at least in mixed shooting situations. So the 16-35 really has something going for it compared to the stellar 14-24mm.
But who knows: this might be the subject of some future review :wink:

Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews, My Pictures, My Photography Blog
D810+assorted lenses

 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Sep 18, 2011 9:38 pm 

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 11:10 pm
Posts: 355
Location: Netherlands
I consider buying Nikon, so a test would not be useless to me.

Olympus E-M5, 9-18, 12-50, 25 f1.8, 45 f1.8, 12-60, 40-150, 70-300

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group