Posted by: behoove_me August 26, 2013
Login in to Rate this Post:
0 
? 
?
I wish I were in DC NOVA or nearby, I live in BFE mid south where possibility of finding a scenic locale like in the rockies or North West is as meager as discovering Lake Michigan in Gobi Desert.
And while we are at it I have some serious questions for avid Nikon photographers. Of course I have googled, but I want a detailed yet clear cut insight on whether to buy 14-24 2.8G nikkor OR 16-35 4G. Almost every pro Nikon Photographers unanimously scream 14-24, given it's affiliation to holy trinity, BUT it has some major flaws which are -
1) The price!!! 14-24 is 750 dollars more than 16-35. I could fly to London and back with that money in February if I lived in New York.
2) It's inability to take 77mm filter like other pro level nikon lenses like 24-70, 70-200, 85mm, 24mm do. Mansurov recommends Lee holder and filter, and when I checked the price, the set cost would me at least 600 dollars, no less. Now with that money added to the previous one, I could actually fly to Nepal and return, if I lived in Chicago.
3) It is BULKY and heavy. and to hang it around my neck, I need an extra set of military press with added weights at the gym.
4) What's the use of 2.8G if I plan to shoot landscape which this lens would normally be used for?
5) Does 2 extra millimeter make a lot of difference?
But the pros are:
1) Sharpness!!! Even avid users of Hasselblads have mentioned they haven't seen such a SHARP wide angle lens, EVER. what it means is if you are shooting a picture with your class mates in your college, the face of the guy at the far left of the picture will be as sharp as the one in the middle if the number of students are err....55.
2) Vignetting - when shot at 5.6 f stop, there is absolutely no vignetting.
3) The LOOK! it looks so grand it will make heads turn. And I'll be damned if one of those turned heads will be of Miley Cyrus (never liked her, but rumors has it that she is number 1 in the Hot chart)
So, which one? I doubt if a single person has both, but can I get insights from individuals if they carry any one of them?
And while we are at it I have some serious questions for avid Nikon photographers. Of course I have googled, but I want a detailed yet clear cut insight on whether to buy 14-24 2.8G nikkor OR 16-35 4G. Almost every pro Nikon Photographers unanimously scream 14-24, given it's affiliation to holy trinity, BUT it has some major flaws which are -
1) The price!!! 14-24 is 750 dollars more than 16-35. I could fly to London and back with that money in February if I lived in New York.
2) It's inability to take 77mm filter like other pro level nikon lenses like 24-70, 70-200, 85mm, 24mm do. Mansurov recommends Lee holder and filter, and when I checked the price, the set cost would me at least 600 dollars, no less. Now with that money added to the previous one, I could actually fly to Nepal and return, if I lived in Chicago.
3) It is BULKY and heavy. and to hang it around my neck, I need an extra set of military press with added weights at the gym.
4) What's the use of 2.8G if I plan to shoot landscape which this lens would normally be used for?
5) Does 2 extra millimeter make a lot of difference?
But the pros are:
1) Sharpness!!! Even avid users of Hasselblads have mentioned they haven't seen such a SHARP wide angle lens, EVER. what it means is if you are shooting a picture with your class mates in your college, the face of the guy at the far left of the picture will be as sharp as the one in the middle if the number of students are err....55.
2) Vignetting - when shot at 5.6 f stop, there is absolutely no vignetting.
3) The LOOK! it looks so grand it will make heads turn. And I'll be damned if one of those turned heads will be of Miley Cyrus (never liked her, but rumors has it that she is number 1 in the Hot chart)
So, which one? I doubt if a single person has both, but can I get insights from individuals if they carry any one of them?
Last edited: 26-Aug-13 03:03 PM