# Nikon 14-24 or 16-35 for Nikon D600?



## Gino (May 18, 2013)

I'm looking for some input on which lens to purchase....please let me know what you think, and please keep in mind I'm just an amateur photographer.

I just ordered a Nikon D600 as a second camera to my 5D Mark III, and I'm considering purchasing either the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 or the 16-35 f/4.

I already own the Canon 17-40 f/4 to use with my 5d Mark III, so I'm leaning toward the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 to use with the D600.

My primary uses for the Nikon 14-24, or the Nikon 16-35, would be:
* sports...football, baseball stadiums, and hockey arenas
* cityscapes/landscapes....I'm planning on taking a trip to Mount Rushmore this summer 
* astrophotography
* architecture

Thanks

P.S. Attached are a few photos I took with the 5D mk3 and 17-40 f/4


----------



## tomms (May 18, 2013)

Get the 14-24 and consider getting a novoflex adapter, that way you can use the lense on both bodies


----------



## Harry Muff (May 18, 2013)

This question is probably best asked on Nikon rumours.


----------



## Sporgon (May 18, 2013)

Well, that's certainly a new angle on sports photography.


----------



## mwh1964 (May 18, 2013)

Why bother and trouble your self with a Nikon, when you are already heavily invested in Canon. If you need a wide angle for your Canon I would suggest getting the 14L.


----------



## Dylan777 (May 18, 2013)

I shot 14-24 on D800 through a friend, all I can say is WOW.

My vote is 14-24. I wish Canon can match or do better than current Nikon 14-24.


----------



## jonsjons (May 18, 2013)

Since you already have a 17-40, I'd get the 14-24 for a rather noticeable amount of extra width. Adorama has refurbished 14-24s for about $1550, and if you pay $7.95 for their VIP program you get a full year's warranty. Good deal. I second the suggestion about the Novoflex adapter....I've been using the 14-24 on my 5d2 with this adapter and it's great so far.


----------



## Aglet (May 18, 2013)

Since you've already ORDERED a D600... 
I have the 14-24, use it on D800. It's a very fun lens to use.
OTOH, it's a bit lacking for me in FL cuz the range I like to use is covered better by the 16-35.

So here's a combo to consider, and it's cost-effective too.

Get the 16-35 VR. It will cover a LOT of common UWA zoom requirements and the VR is a useful bonus.
If you need to get even wider, get the Excellent and low cost Samyang/Rokinon 14mm f/2.8. It has a lot of distortion but it's actually sharper and has less CA than the Nikon 14-24 at the 14mm. There'e enough sharpness to PP the distortion out and still have a good image. Both of those will likely still cost less than the 14-24.

And, with that Novoflex or other adapter, as mentioned by others, you can use both of these on your Canon too.
Nikon 20mm f/2.8 is another good fast prime to add to the mix, IF needed.

IMO - good on you for exploring the other side. These things are tools, and, if you can afford it, it's nice to have the best tools for the job, no matter who makes them. Getting the extra benefit of using Nik glass on Can bodies with an adapter is an extra bonus.


----------



## ksagomonyants (May 18, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> I shot 14-24 on D800 through a friend, all I can say is WOW.
> 
> My vote is 14-24. I wish Canon can match or do better than current Nikon 14-24.



There are already lenses for Canon bodies whose optical quality surpasses that of Nikon's 14-24.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 19, 2013)

ksagomonyants said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I shot 14-24 on D800 through a friend, all I can say is WOW.
> ...


 
Read the OP. You cannot mount a Canon lens to a Nikon Body!! 

You should also tell us which superior 14-24 lens is made for Canon bodies that is better so we can avail of your wisdom.


----------



## ksagomonyants (May 19, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> ksagomonyants said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



You don't have to be sarcastic here, you're missing the point and sound really bad (seriously). If you've read more carefully what I said, you'd understand that my response was not to the OP, but to the statement that Canon hasn't released a lens which would match or exceed Nikon's 14-24 in terms of its IQ. In my opinion, IQ of Canon's TSE17 and Zeiss ZE 15/2.8 and 21/2.8 is overall better than Nikon's 14-24. A guy already has 5diii, why not to invest money in the lens which can be used on Canon's body instead of investing into Nikon with a great but still a zoom lens?


----------



## moocowe (May 19, 2013)

I'm wondering why you're considering 16-35 on D600 if you already have 17-40 on 5D3?

If you sold thd 17-40, then the 16-35mm VR and Samyang 14mm (on the 5D3) sounds like a great combination. The distortion on the Samyang isn't as bad as it's made out to be, and it's easily corrected anyway (Mount 'stache-more might be a different story). The Samyang looks like one of the best wide angle options for astrophotography due to having less coma than the big boys. I just got mine and was going to try it tonight, unfortunately the clouds didn't agree.

Just be aware that the focus scale on the Samyang might be way off like mine was, but is easy to correct with some jeweller's screwdrivers.


----------



## eml58 (May 19, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> ksagomonyants said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



The Nikon 14-24f/2.8 as far as a WA Zoom is concerned, has no pears, I purchased the D800 sometime back as a possible replacement for my 5DMK II gear for Underwater Photography, I already had the 14-24 and was using it with the Novaflex Adaptor on my Canon Gear, works fine but you loose the autofocus.

I have since sold my D800 and Nikon lenses, the D800 in my view simply didn't live up to the Hype and have since Housed my 5DMK III, But I have held onto the 14-24, until Canon bring out an equivalent this Lens remains the best WA Zoom on the Market (as long as you don't mind manual focus on a Canon Body), Canon have nothing to compare.

And before everyone leaps on my back, keep in mind we are talking about WA Zooms here, not primes I have the 17TSE & 24 TSE + The Zeiss 15f/2.8 Distagon T, all absolutely brilliant lenses for IQ, but they are Primes, the Op is talking Zooms, and the price point of these 3 Primes I've mentioned tend to keep them in the Camera Bags of those with True, nothing can help, addiction.

But, back to your question, get the 14-24 if it's in your price range, there's a big difference in price and IQ between the 14-24 f/2.8 & 16-35f/4 Nikon Lenses, I don't know about the IQ of the 16-35f/4, but I cant see it being equal to the 14-24f/2.8, nothing much is.


----------



## Dylan777 (May 19, 2013)

ksagomonyants said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I shot 14-24 on D800 through a friend, all I can say is WOW.
> ...



Can you pin point Canon UWA Zoom lenses that equal or out perform Nikon 14-24? I'm still looking for one :-\


----------



## ksagomonyants (May 19, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> ksagomonyants said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



Dylan, please read my post above. Probably I didn't state this clear enough when I said there are better UWA lenses than Nikon 14-24. The point is that i) I meant both fixed and zoom lenses, and ii) a guy already invested in Canon, so why not to get the best UWA lens from Canon (17mm TSE) or Zeiss (15 or 21mm) instead of investing into Nikon. Nikon 14-24 is still going to be manual, you need to buy an adapter, loose an F-stop, can't get a filter for it; it's subject to flare and some CA. In your case, if you really need to have an UWA zoom lens, then I agree with you, Nikon 14-24 is probably your best choice. But it's a very special lens, and I personally wouldn't buy it unless I used Nikon body. I hope it clarifies what I meant initially. For OP, Nikon 14-24 would be a better choice. Have a good rest of the weekend


----------



## MLfan3 (May 28, 2013)

hi , I am a dual system user and my main camera is currently D800E.
I 'd say do not get the Nikon 14-24 , which is really overrated , it is not that amazing.
I mean it is sharp but has terrible distortion , terrible back light performance , does not take any filter , it is huge and heavy and difficult to take care of.
so I think you might want to consider the Zeiss 18mm f3.5 or Zeiss 21mm f2.8 or Nikon 16-35f4VR.

I use the Nikon 16-35f4VR on my 5DMK2.
The 16-35f4VR is a very very practical zoom , it's got great range with VR and it is quite sharp from 16 to 32mm range and it seldom flares.
I have the Zeiss 18 and Canon 24mm TSE for my 5D2 and I have been very happy with the TSE24 and I am considering replacing my Zeiss 18mm f3.5 with the Canon 17mmf4 TSE.
Anyway, I think most of people worship about the Nikon 14-24mmf2.8GED are not owners of it , they are just reading reviews and rave about it, it is a good lens optically , no doubt about it but it is also a very tough lens to use and extremely difficult to take great care of.


----------

