Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Alistair" data-source="post: 361849" data-attributes="member: 18904">As they say; there’s a positive to every negative, and wide-angle lenses seem to amplify this.&nbsp;Despite the flaws of the 16-35 lens I think this is the one I’m going to have to go for. The 10-24 is a very good lens, but it too has distortion problems at 10mm. I can’t image the 16-35 is going be any worse than that at 16mm.&nbsp;PROS:&nbsp;I have the Nikon 24-70mm lens, so can still use my 77mm ND filters on it, so at a push I could do all my slow shutter stuff with that, and just buy the 14-24 for its obvious benefits in general landscape photography.&nbsp;CONS:&nbsp;While the 24-70 is a superb lens, it isn’t wide-angle and won’t capture the drama that wide-angles can with slow shutter speed stuff.&nbsp;What would you guys do in my situation? Thanks for your input, by the way. Very helpful.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Alistair, post: 361849, member: 18904"] As they say; there’s a positive to every negative, and wide-angle lenses seem to amplify this. Despite the flaws of the 16-35 lens I think this is the one I’m going to have to go for. The 10-24 is a very good lens, but it too has distortion problems at 10mm. I can’t image the 16-35 is going be any worse than that at 16mm. [B] PROS:[/B] I have the Nikon 24-70mm lens, so can still use my 77mm ND filters on it, so at a push I could do all my slow shutter stuff with that, and just buy the 14-24 for its obvious benefits in general landscape photography. [B] CONS:[/B] While the 24-70 is a superb lens, it isn’t wide-angle and won’t capture the drama that wide-angles can with slow shutter speed stuff. What would you guys do in my situation? Thanks for your input, by the way. Very helpful. [/QUOTE]

Verification