My friend is going to sell his Nikon 14-24 f2.8 and offered my to buy it, for 169dollars cheaper than the askin prices online are at the moment in norway. So i am thinking about buying it from him and sell my Tokina 12 - 24 f4 dx glass.

 

So I am wondering if anyone have some experience with the 14 - 24 mm? Or the 16-35? I see they also sell the 16-35 new for a little bit more money that i would have to pay for the gentle used 14-24. The 16 - 35 is better when it comes to filters.

 

I think i mostly will use the wideangel zooom on cars and nature pictures, thats what the tokina has been used for.

 

Any recomandations? And tips?

 

If you can afford the Nikon and have the arm strength to use it, BUY IT. It's the one Nikon "Pro" zoom that I would buy if I could. VERY HIGHLY RATED EVERYWHERE.

 

But, that said, you have a very nice lens already. I know, I have one and love it. I personally don't covet the more expensive and VERY much heavier lens.

Thanks for the reply. I read that its highly rated, but they also right the 16-35 high. So I am struggeling making a choice. The Tokina is only DX not FX, so it do not serve justice to my Nikon D800. fx body.

 

Missed the need for FX in your OP. I do use my Tokina on my film bodies. If you don't zoom wider than @16mm you don't get hardly any vignetting. But beyond that it will eventually show a complete black circle. So, probably not a good solution for FX. I've never used or even seen firsthand the 16-35 but on FX it would give you roughly the same coverage as the Tokina when used on DX.

14-24 is the best you can buy! Have it by my self:-)

 

Do you have any filters or filter holders?

For what you need filters?

 

Water , and long exposures of sky and perhaps some stones in the front and silky effect on the see.

For ND`s you can use something like this:

http://www.computeruniverse.net/products/90212932/cokin-digital-filterhalter.asp

 

But others filters really no need:-)

 

But of course! Duh!! Why didn't I think of that???

I would choose the 14-24 if you can. Lens tests show it to be superior overall to the 16-35.

Hi, I bought the 14-24 about 18 months ago. It is very sharp and very useful for architecture. It suffers from distortion, though .

Although LR4 corrects this automatoically, you loose quite a lot to the resulting crop and slao some sharpnes due to the resulting interpolation.

I have gone back to use my old 18mm MF lens a lot, is also works very nicely ( you will spot two shots in my gallery) the advantage is that you CAN use a 72mm filter to potect the lens, it fits in your trouser pocket and it is quite easy to do hand - held night shots. And you never need to worry about sand or humidity in the tropical forest.

 

If you really do a lot of architecture ( I di jobs for a real estate agent) buy the 14-24. Don't be led to think you need it for landscape, I find it too extreme.

 

Just had a look in LR: among among the 1500 shots I took with the lens, about 550 are taken at 14 mm, about 80 each at 15mm and 16mm.

90% are buildings inside out, a few are rainforest shots trying to include the canopy.

 

The 14mm has one big advantage: you can hold the camera parallel to the building and crop off all the superfluous stuff, as in pavement or floors.

 

For other purposes, get the MANUAL 15 or 18mm, no distortion, and the latter is really easy to lug around.

If you can choose between the two lenses, go for the 16/35.

It’s much more versatile and it can mount any filter.

14/24 it’s a very specific glass, it’s heavy and bulky and has a lot of distorsion and vignetting at 14.

I had it coupled with my D800 and I’ve never been very happy of it.

Regards