New lens advice

[Levi]

Hi all,

I have a question about a new landscape lens I'm thinking of getting.

I already have a Nikon 24mm f/1.8 G and a Nikon 16-35mm f/4 G. I now have
a chance to get a new Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 E lens.

I have someone interested in the 16-35mm lens.

My question is, would you sell the 16-36mm lens and get the 24-70 lens? I rarely shot in the 16-24 range.

Thanks,

Levi

 

[JANuser]

If you think you will use it, might as well give it go, the 24-70 is a great lens to have.

 

[Ado Wolf]

It depends if you are shooting FF or DX? 24-70 mm is a great walk around / travel lens.

I shoot DX so 16-36 mm gives me the FF equivalent of 24-54 mm.. which I would use for Landscape. Now that I am getting a FF camera as a 2nd body, I would like to go for the 24-70. It’s versatile (landscape to portrait), bright lens (F 2.8), but is it expensive and not the lightest to carry. If these aren’t issues for you, then I highly recommend it.

 

[DRwyoming]

My question is, would you sell the 16-36mm lens and get the 24-70 lens? I rarely shot in the 16-24 range.

That depends entirely on your photography interests.

The Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 is a fantastic lens, very sharp and pro quality all the way. I've owned several generations of this lens but as I did less commercial shooting work I found less and less need for that lens. For landscape work I get a lot more mileage out of my 16-35mm lens and for a general travel and walk around mid range zoom I prefer the 24-120mm or 24-85mm so these days the 24-70mm isn't part of my kit.

But I've got friends that still do a lot of commercial environmental portraiture work (mostly folks in their places of work for magazine articles) and they swear by the 24-70mm as their go-to lens for that kind of work.

The 24-70mm f/2.8 is part of Nikon's trilogy of fantastic pro lenses and is really a well designed and rock solid lens. But whether it's worth swapping out your 16-35mm or other lenses really depends on the focal lengths you use the most for your preferred areas of photography. If price is no object then keep the 16-35mm lens (or pick up a 14-24mm lens another member of Nikon's trilogy of pro lenses along with the 70-200mm f/2.8) but if it's a one or the other sort of decision then it really comes down to which lens would be more helpful for what you like to shoot.

 

[dabhand16]

I've always had a 24-70. Even in my DX days I had the 17-55 f2.8, and both were/are my most used lenses. I've also got a 14-24 f2.8, but I don't use it nearly enough, but when i do, it rocks.

 

[Steve]

I mean, if you seldom shoot in the 16-24 range, it does seem like the 24-70 is a better choice. I always like really wide lenses for my landscapes, so I'm more of a 14-24 range kind of guy However, we all have different approaches and you should create a kit that matches your approach.

 

[Levi]

Thanks everyone one for your advice. I did get the Nikon 24-70mm e lens and I have decided to keep the 16-35mm lens. I have a hard time parting with any of my gear.
I think it is better to have something and not need it than to need something and not have it.

Thanks again.

Levi

 

[dutchbenke]

I have traveled in Western Europe for months on end with two lens, 24-70 2.8 & a 17-35 2.8 and have shot a lot. In reviewing my focal len history in L/R 94% of my photos are with the 24-70 ! That said, if I was honest, it’s probably because I was lazy. In reviewing the 17-35 photos now, I really prefer the results vs the 24-70 in the same focal lengths. I choose the 17-35 because it could accept a filter, where I believe the other options could not. I have no experience with any of the other lens mentioned so my experience is very limited. Sitting here writing this response, I am asking myself “ why don’t I start using the 17-35 more”?

 

[Calson]

The 18-35mm f/3.5G and the 16-35mm f/4 lenses both take 77mm size filters. My copy of the 18-35mm was noticeably sharper than the 16-35mm lens that I rented for week of testing, but of course neither are as sharp as the hefty 14-24mm f/2.8 zoom and this was evident with the 12MP D3 camera.

 

[O]

Hi all,

I have a question about a new landscape lens I'm thinking of getting.

I already have a Nikon 24mm f/1.8 G and a Nikon 16-35mm f/4 G. I now have
a chance to get a new Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 E lens.

I have someone interested in the 16-35mm lens.

My question is, would you sell the 16-36mm lens and get the 24-70 lens? I rarely shot in the 16-24 range.

Thanks,

Levi

Hi, If you looking at doing a lot more landscape more seriously the field of view obtained at 16mm is the better choice than 24mm.
I personally use two lenses, the 14-24 which gives me the best results as its 14mm and F2,8, and Yes the 16mm Fish eye which was originally designed for Astrology as it has F2.8 and a 180 degree angle of view.
Doing land - sea scapes I look for a dramatic perspective in the foreground, a interest point in the mid ground, with a point of interest in the horizon like sun or clouds, when the image is judged in competition these are the elements we judge, 14mm has a dynamic perspective adding a real WOW factor as apposed to just a documentary shot say at 50mm.

The 16-35 is one of he most popular and widely used serious landscape lens rage, being F4 makes it sharper in the centre that the 14-24 2.8 by about 20% but at a compromise in the corners, hence the 14-24 is shaper evenly corner to corner which is what you want.
I have used my 24-70 2.8 G for landscapes where the dramatic wide angle of view wasn't as critical and it has been with great results, however if your looking at doing landscapes at 50mm 70mm then your better using a 70-200 2.8, it adds compression and works well with stacking.
I guess where I am heading is simply, what type of landscape work do you want to do, if you haven't tried the dramatic wide angle style of shooting yet, then yes the 24-70 E is the clear choice. For the ultimate landscape lens the Nikon 19mm Tilt shift is insane, and even better if your using a D850 the Schneider tilt shift is beyond words.
If you buy the 24-70 I would sell not only the 16-35 but also the 24mm 1.8 as its a duplication, unless you have a very specific application ??

Everything really depends on what you like and want to shoot...……...my self I am on the same bus as Steve, I love my 14-24 2.8 or I use the 70-200 FL or the 16mm Fish eye.

Only an Opinion hope it helps

OZ down Under