On recent photography projects, my wife and I have found that we need a lens with a wider angle of view. So, naturally, I began researching to determine the lens that we should buy for our needs. I had no idea it would be so hard to decide. I found out that there are two excellent lenses from Nikon for an FX camera. One is the highly praised Nikon AF-S Zoom Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED AF Lens and the other is the also highly praised (but not as much) Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Wide Angle Zoom Lens. As it turns out, both of these lenses have excellent user reviews.
For the Nikon 14-24mm, this lens is considered the king of ultra wide angle zoom lenses by many and its image quality is unmatched. There are some that say the 16-35mm does surpass the image quality while others say it doesn't so it is very hard for me to determine which lens has the better image quality without testing both. But, I'm unwilling to spend the money to rent both lenses for our purposes and thus I've cornered myself into making a decision based on user reviews and specifications.
Each lens has its pros and cons. The 14-24mm is heavier and has a large bulbous front that can catch unwanted lens flares very easily. Due to the large front glass, it can't take standard Nikon filters and it requires the user to be careful not to scratch it since it does protrude from the casing a bit. Also, it doesn't have the VR (Vibration-Reduction) technology which means it most likely would need to be used with a tripod. We could do this for our real estate or landscape photography but I just don't see us carrying our tripod around for our other business. However, it does include a larger aperture at f/2.8 over the 16-35mm minimum of f/4. From what I've read, the distortion of the 14-24mm is minimal.
The 16-35mm is a more portable lens and is lighter than the 14-24mm. I've read that the lens is made with more plastic and some users feel that this takes away from the build quality. The widest aperture is f/4 which should be fine for most of our uses but could become a limitation with indoor real estate photography. However, the lens can take standard Nikon filters which means we could use a circular polarizing filter to take landscape pictures to produce that blue sky we desire in our shots. At 16mm, it does produce lots of distortion even though users say that this can be easily corrected in Photoshop. One user review I read indicates that it is not the best lens at the 35mm end of the zoom range either and that there are better options available at 35mm. From the reviews I've read, 16-35mm seems to be strong in the 20-28mm range. This lens also includes the VR technology so we should be able to take photographs without carrying the tripod to our sessions.
If I had my desires, I would be able to buy a lens that includes the strengths of both of these lens but there isn't another option that I'm aware of for wide angle zooms. We could look into wide angle prime lenses but all of the Nikon branded wide angle prime lenses are about the same cost as these highly praised zoom lenses so it doesn't make sense to me to purchase a prime lens in this range.
Each day I look at this I go back and forth on which one is the winner for our needs. I even went as far as ordering the 14-24mm and then cancelling the order about 4 hours later. I'm really drawn to the 14-24mm but it does seem like it wouldn't be as versatile as we need it to be. I have found that the 14-24mm even has an unofficial term used on the internet in user reviews as the "best lens I never use." That certainly doesn't bode well for it to be the best choice for our needs. I liked what one user said about discussing these lenses is really like splitting hairs and they both can produce excellent images.
So, as I've struggled with this decision, it feels like I need to "settle" for the 16-35mm since it better meets our photography needs but I really hate that I have the feeling that I'm settling for a lens in this price range. Even so, I'm sure the 16-35mm will be very useful for our photography needs.
