Nikon D850 14-24 or 16-35? Why?

Thank you Wukong for inviting me to answer.

Nikon D850 14-24 or 16-35? Why?

These two lenses are sharp tools for shooting scenery.

Many new friends are absolutely blank when choosing the lens. The most important reasons are money and budget.

I believe that many friends are not very comfortable when choosing a lens after buying an expensive fuselage, so compare some lenses with similar focal lengths to choose.

The landlord wants to give 850 a wide angle and choose between 14-24 and 16-35. Let me give you my opinion.

1. If you have more money, I suggest buying 14-24 lens. After all, it is one of the three-dimensional big shots. Although a little old, the image quality and imaging are still relatively reliable, and it is a very good lens.

2. If you like to play with filters when shooting scenery, it is recommended to buy 16-35 lens, because it is convenient to install filters, but 14-24 is the bulb head and the front lens protrudes. Although there are brackets available to install the filter, it is still very troublesome and expensive.

You can buy 14-24 if you have requirements for shooting the starry sky. After all, it has a constant aperture of 2.8 and a wide field of vision, which is a sharp weapon to shoot the starry sky.

If you want to pursue lightness, then you should choose 16-35. Compared with the small three-element lens, it is still much lighter, and 14-24 is directly an iron feeling, very heavy, very heavy.

In fact, the choice of lens mainly depends on everyone's economic ability. If you have enough money, you can't go wrong in buying expensive ones.

The above is my opinion, and friends are welcome to add or comment.

Sword dance image, western photographer, welcome to pay attention.

The pictures in the article are all quoted online, just to illustrate the meaning of the topic, thanks to the original author.

How much money to do how many big things, 14-24 is very good, with little distortion to the scenery.

Nikon D850 14-24 or 16-35? Why?

On this issue, I would like to add the parameters of these two lenses mentioned by the subject: 14-24 f/2.8 F/2.8, 16-35f/4.

As can be seen from the above parameters, the two lenses, in terms of hard indicators, are different in focal length and aperture.

On the focal length, the wide focal length of 14-24 is wider, which means that the viewing angle will be wider; On the aperture, 14-24 has a larger aperture, which means more light can enter the camera.

With these two shots as options, the target theme of the main body display is the scenery, and the theme of the scenery is mainly large viewing angle and large depth of field. From these two aspects, 14-24 has many advantages.

From the perspective of shooting scenery, there is no better zoom lens than 14-24.

In terms of depth of field, a large depth of field is basically the standard for landscape photography, and 14-24 lens and wider focal length will definitely bring greater depth of field.

From the perspective, the wider the focal length, the more "scenery" will enter the picture.

The broad vision not only brings people a different feeling from the perspective, but also gives people a stronger feeling in the impact and guiding line.

These are the advantages of a wider focal length. And a big aperture? In terms of light control, a larger aperture will of course have more light to use. Although the depth of field is sacrificed, this disadvantage will be diluted and the priority of larger aperture will be strengthened.

I'm afraid 16-35 is not as good as 14-24. Wide-angle focusing is not good, and the aperture is not good.

The only disadvantage of 14-24 is that it is more expensive than 16-35, but personally, the cost performance may not be lost.

Oh, the most important thing about 14-24 is its big light bulb, which is inconvenient for both safety and filter use. In terms of safety, I am afraid there is no good way except to be more careful; There is also the use of filters, and there are special brackets, but it is more troublesome to work.

In terms of theme and image quality, it is 14-24!

Personal opinion, for reference only.

Listening to both is bright, listening to others is dark. Read more answers and you will have your own opinions!

I am the south of the south, welcome to pay attention.

Cheer for Wuhan and cheer for China. Won! ! !

After buying 16-35, I still think of14-24; After buying 14-24, I will never consider buying 16-35 again. It's that simple.

There is a big difference between the two shots in essence. One is that the lens with a wider viewing angle adopts the bulb head design and the aperture is F2.8, which can shoot a wider scene. Moreover, F2.8 can also shoot the starry sky, which is a relatively comprehensive super wide-angle lens. With it, you can almost travel all over the world (super wide-angle scenery photography).

There is a big gap between 16-35 and 14 in the visual field. I don't feel so much in the number of super wide angles and 2mm, but the actual shooting experience is very obvious. 14 is wide and 16 is slightly narrow. 16-35 is Nikon's main scenery lens with high performance-to-price ratio. The aperture F4 has VR (anti-shake), but the image quality is worse than 14-24F2.8.

In fact, a large part of the reason for choosing a super wide-angle lens lies in the photographer's own needs. 16-35F4VR is actually ok if you don't have a lot of budget and want to shoot scenery for a long time. After all, the price is there, much cheaper than 14-24, and the cost performance is much higher.

If you like the scenery very much, and have a demand for starry sky photography, and prefer the ultra-wide view of 14, it is recommended to buy 14-24F2.8, with better picture quality and larger aperture. Low-light photography has certain advantages, and it can be hung up to shoot scenery.

Having said that, I finally suggest going to the physical store to experience it again. If possible, you can borrow it to play, and it's not too late to experience it yourself. After all, money doesn't come from the wind. Play around and don't like it. If you sell it and buy something else, you will lose money.

It depends on what you are doing. I used to have a 14-24 camera. The scenery is really beautiful and enjoyable, and the distortion control is good. However, the use of this kind of lens in news photography and activity capture is not as peaceful as 16-35. 16-35 is f4 aperture, but its influence in documentary photography is not particularly great. After all, the 850 camera is sensitive and spacious enough for news applications. In portrait photography, I prefer 16-35. Wide angle can better control distortion. It took me more than a year to adapt to the changes of two lenses and see my scope of application. If the scenery is the main thing, it is 14-24. It's more practical if I want to take care of landscape photography. After all, the intermediate focal length of 28-35 is very suitable for humanities documentary shooting, so it won't be too much. Regarding the image quality mentioned by many people, I think there is no obvious difference in the image quality of this golden hoop head. There is no 100% comparability between the equipment and the quality control series of the same level, so it is not necessary to excessively pursue the word-of-mouth of most people or extreme numerical indicators as the evaluation criteria. After all, photography does not have the characteristics of accurate scale measurement, and the sense of picture and control skills are the first.

After reading a lot of answers, I can say that it is comprehensive and reasonable, but I want to add a few more specific points:

1. Your camera has said D850, indicating that you have certain requirements for photography, and the economic situation will not be too bad;

2. The contrast shot contains 14~24, indicating that the price is within your acceptable range:

In principle, you should buy the best lens you can afford.

Based on the above points, I don't hesitate to suggest that you buy 14~24, which is really healthy and energetic! The reason is:

1. Gianni lens, which once ranked first among ultra-wide-angle lenses and was once envied by Canon users for a long time, is the best comprehensive quality among Nikon users even now.

2. Compared with the wide-angle lens, anti-shake is useful, but it is far less important than in the medium telephoto lens. For landscape photography, shelf is the basis to ensure image quality rather than anti-shake; ;

3. The quality of the lens has more influence on the photos than the body. I started with the D70 fuselage, experienced D200, D700, D800 in the middle, and now D850, but there are always a few commonly used lenses, the oldest is 135/2, then 14~24, and finally 35/ 1.4. The fuselage changes in turn, and the lens is much more stable. 14~24 is also the one I use the most, not one of them. The only thing to worry about is that superlight requires a lot of control from photographers.

So I have no other recommendation except 14~24.

There are not many SLR photos in the mobile phone. The last few 14~24 are for your reference.

Since they are all classic d850 from Nikon, let's choose a better one 14-24/2.8. Nikon 16-35/4.0 I used to shoot scenery. To tell the truth, this head is very general, and the edge image quality is poor. The aperture of 4.0 can't be compared with that of 2.8, and the price is quite different. Nikon lens 14-24/2.8 is the best for shooting scenery. Do not enter 16-35/.

Actually, this question is easy to answer. I'll write the conclusion first and then explain the reason: choose 16-35.

So what kind of person would ask this question?

Landscape photography enthusiasts, or landscape photography enthusiasts who have certain pursuits. It won't affect next month's income because of a bad photo. It is recommended to buy 16-35, which is suitable for many scenes, much cheaper and not too difficult to use.

I didn't mean to belittle the photographer at all. After all, no one's money is blown by the wind.

Nikon D850 wide angle, choose 14-24 or 16-35?

There is no doubt that you should choose 14-24.

Compare the parameters of the next two shots:

These two lenses are Quan Huafu lenses, except for the different focal lengths, with the maximum aperture F2.8 and the maximum aperture F4.

The detailed comparison is as follows (from Nikon official website)

It should be said that 14-24 is much better in terms of lens quality and parameters.

At present, the price difference between the two lenses is about 1000, so there should be no objection to choosing 14-24.

But I suggest that you don't choose the original, and look at the two lenses of Sigma, 14-24/2.8 or 14/ 1.8.

Sharp imaging and rich colors are definitely a good choice.

The following photos were taken by Sima lens.

I am an old box, welcome to pay attention to communication.