16-35 vs 14-24

This is not a scientific experiment. I just went out with both lenses and shot from the same spot with the D700 at iso 200.
I shot both lenses at F4 to be fair and used jpegs straight out of the camera.

16-35


12-24 from same spot


16-35 100% crop right bottom corner (almost)


14-24 crop of about the same area



From what I see, there is not much difference in quality. But the 14-24 is wider.

I'll let you make your own mind if you have to get one or the other.

Thanks for the view.

Can you shoot both at 8 and/or 11 and post the results?

Do you have both lenses? I know you just got the 14-24.

Both Tripod? maybe my imagination, but seems like the 16-35 is a hair sharper?

jwstl said:

Can you shoot both af 8 and/or 11 and post the results?

Click to expand...

When it gets warmer maybe, but I would not expect to be able to see the difference because of the definition limits of our monitor screens and the size of the uploads allowed.

stmv said:

Both Tripod? maybe my imagination, but seems like the 16-35 is a hair sharper?

Click to expand...

No tripod, hand held but shutter speed was 1/2000 for both. Now what does that say?
But it was very cold and windy and maybe, just maybe the focus distance was not EXACTLY the same. Yes, I just checked and the 14-24was focused about 1.3 feet beyond the 16-35.

So as I said, it was not scientific…

TedG954 said:

Do you have both lenses? I know you just got the 14-24.

Click to expand...

Yes Ted I have both. Got the 16-35 about 2 years ago with the D700, and the other was a Kijiji ad in our local internet ad.

Thanks Marcel! It really points out the value of 2mm! IQ wise, hard to tell.

The way I see it, unless someone really needed the extra 2mm and the 2.8 luminosity, the 16-35 is the bargain between the two. And it's a bit lighter and does take filters.

The folks at this site spent what I'm assuming is a lot of time putting together profiles of different lenses in a way that allows you to compare them both to other lenses and to itself (at various apertures) simply by mousing over the image and moving from one setting to the other. It captures pieces of an image taken at 3 specific spots on this chart...



... at varying focal lengths and apertures so that the full image is always comprised of the entire red box. My biggest concern with the 16-35 has always been box 3 at 16mm, where it's soft at almost every aperture. While not visible in your shots (I'd need to see full size jpgs to have a better idea) it's still a bit concerning to me since it's the widest setting that I'm most interested in, and the lens is 2/3 the price of the 14-24. Here's a link to a preset side-by-side of the two.

Regardless, it's food for thought. Thanks for taking the time, Marcel.

I'm very interested in the 16-35. Why did you get the 12-24? 16 wasn't wide enough? Any downsides on the 16-35?

TedG954 said:

I'm very interested in the 16-35. Why did you get the 12-24? 16 wasn't wide enough? Any downsides on the 16-35?

Click to expand...

It's the 14-24 Ted, Not 12-24. Why did I get it… NAS pure and simple. I thought I'd see more of a quality difference between the two.

Nice site Jake! I'll be interested to see how it works with the new 18-35

Well, I just bought one. The 16-35. And it's your fault Marcel. You had to remind me my birthday was coming up, and I hadn't gotten myself anything yet.

I'm looking forward to getting it.

As a side note, I ordered it from B&H.

TedG954 said:

Well, I just bought one. The 16-35. And it's your fault Marcel. You had to remind me my birthday was coming up, and I hadn't gotten myself anything yet.

I'm looking forward to getting it.

As a side note, I ordered it from B&H.

Click to expand...

Ah ted don't worry if it's my fault. I'm quite sure you will love this lens. I think it's a nice birthday gift. Too bad I had spent all my Amazon rebates…

TedG954 said:

Well, I just bought one. The 16-35. And it's your fault Marcel. You had to remind me my birthday was coming up, and I hadn't gotten myself anything yet.

I'm looking forward to getting it.

As a side note, I ordered it from B&H.

Click to expand...

I did a lot of pondering, thinking about what I did and didn't like about each, and moreso what I wanted and didn't want. Ultimately, the ability to stick a high value ND filter on there and do long daylight exposures without trying to figure out how else to make that happen has me willing to give it a go. Then went to B&H and saw that it was $150 cheaper than Amazon (who is usually right there with them). And then I remembered I had close to $60 in B&H dollars. I just hope they shop mine out first, Ted.

And yes, Marcel, it's your fault. LOL

BackdoorHippie said:

Then went to B&H and saw that it was $150 cheaper than Amazon (who is usually right there with them). And then I remembered I had close to $60 in B&H dollars. I just hope they shop mine out first, Ted.

Click to expand...

The Race is on!


I found B&H to be the best price too. I first started ordering it from Adorama (same price) but they kept adding $111 for tax (maybe they opened a store in Florida) so I switched to B&H.

There's definitely an Adorama in NJ. I'm 10 miles from PA, so I need to find a friend over there who will accept a package for me. LOL

Now look what you've done Marcel!

You should start a review site and get kickbacks from a link!

Rick M said:

Now look what you've done Marcel!

You should start a review site and get kickbacks from a link!

Click to expand...

I don't think I want to make money with my peers Rick. I'm just enjoying this for my own pleasure. I'm voluntarily slowing down work and photography is my retirement hobby. If I only could stop collecting lenses and cameras maybe I could work even less.