Nikon 24mm f1.4 or the Nikon 16-35mm f4 for landscapes.

[KSPImaging]

Hello.

I need a little nudge in the right direction in order to make up my mind.

I have a choice to make between two Nikon lenses. The Nikon 24mm f1.4 and the 16-35mm f4 lenses.

I do know the obvious differences, such as speed etc., as I have been making photographic images for longer than I care to remember, about 50 years, not including my teenage years, 20 in HM Armed Forces and the past 30 years as a Studio Portrait and Wedding/Event photographer. I have now passed the baton over to 2 young pups so that I can catch up with some hill walking. I walk about 12-15 mile a day in all weathers, although, at 70, I don't know how long I can keep that up for, anyway, I have decided to practice LANDSCAPE PHOTOGRAPHY, a very new photographic disciplin and one I'm very excited about.

I have a Nikon D3x (I'm not going to lugg a medium format or large format kit around, getting to old for that, despite the advantages) at my disposal and all I need now is a stunning lens to helps make stunning Landscapes. I suppose the real question is (sorry its taken so long to get there), is there anyone out there that can tell me if I will lose any image quality by using a zoom lens over a prime or do the benefits of having ability to change focal lengths outweigh any cons it may have. I ask because I have no experience with zoom lenses having only ever used Prime lenses, and I have read fantastic reviews about both of these Nikon lenses.

Regards
Kurtis.

[Almond.Butterscotch]

have you considered the 14-24mm? It wont take filters (other than ones like Lee's), but its supposed to be quite the contender for landscapes.

[zona5101]

the 24 f1.4 is US$2k...for $2k i would get the 14-24f2.8 - (one day that lens will be the holy grail of Nikon lenses).

[jdepould]

I think I'd go with the 16-35, just for the additional flexibility. I love the 14-24, but it's a bit unwieldy with that bulbous front element.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by Almond.Butterscotch

have you considered the 14-24mm? It wont take filters (other than ones like Lee's), but its supposed to be quite the contender for landscapes.

The 14-24 is nice, but the 16-35 is marginally sharper and takes filters. For landscape work, that's critical.

The 24/1.4 is fine is you NEED f/1.4. If you don't (as with landscapes), then dont worry about it. Instead...

The 24mm f/3.5 PC-E. Allows for tilt-shift for maximum depth of field and creative focus selection. Also allows for controlling and altering perspective shift (keystoning)

[ravncat]

i`ll agree with Osmosis.

The 16-35 is certainly more flexible with VR and zoom. The 24 1.4 is faster and sharper. I`m not sure there`s too much weight difference between them. The 24mm pce - is great for perspective control, which makes it a wonderful landscape lens.

If you`re looking for 24mm and landscapes - the pce is probably a better choice - unless you don`t use a tripod. If you don`t use a tripod - well , you can handhold the pc-e lens, but it becomes more challenging - and the 1.4 will let you shoot in less light.

Flexibility x Value for money = 16-35, I would think. The questions, I cannot answer - are how well either of those lenses works on a d3x. There was a fellow here awhile back who was asking about the zeiss 21 and nikkon 24 1.4 - Bet he will have some comments on the 24 1.4 after he uses it on the d3x (I believe he was going to rent it)

[jdepould]

Touche, I sort of overlooked the D3x bit. I'm super paranoid when I shoot the D3x, and I've only ever used PC-E glass, for the larger image circle.

[KSPImaging]

Hello everyone.

I'm quite overwhelmed by the response I have received to my question, thank you all.

Osmosis - You mentioned the 24mm PC-E lens, I did consider this as I am quite used to working with large format camera's and I will be using a Gitzo carbon fibre tripod, but I have read somewhere, that for landscape work I will need to send the lens to Nikon for a 90 degree adjustment so that it would give me RISE & FALL with TILT, this alteration will remove the SWING movement. I wonder how much Nikon will charge me for that.

jdepould - Can I ask why are you paranoid about shooting with the D3X???

Almond.Butterscotch, - yes, the 14-24mm sounds a wonderful lens, but, I think that it is out as I will be using Lee filters, including a circular polarising filter.

ravncat - it looks like I may rent a lens or two to get to my final choice, It will be interesting to read what other fellow has to say as he seems to have had much the same decision to make.

Regards
Kurtis.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by KSPImaging

Osmosis - You mentioned the 24mm PC-E lens, I did consider this as I am quite used to working with large format camera's and I will be using a Gitzo carbon fibre tripod, but I have read somewhere, that for landscape work I will need to send the lens to Nikon for a 90 degree adjustment so that it would give me RISE & FALL with TILT, this alteration will remove the SWING movement. I wonder how much Nikon will charge me for that.

I'm not exceedingly familiar with the tilt-shift/rise-fall movements system, but from what I've seen its a few hundred. Well worth it, in my opinion.

[KSPImaging]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

I'm not exceedingly familiar with the tilt-shift/rise-fall movements system, but from what I've seen its a few hundred. Well worth it, in my opinion.

Yes, I would agree, as any camera with these facilities are at an advantage for precise control of DOF and perspective in my experience. I have just emailed Nikon UK service center, asking if this work is required and if yes, a quote for this work.

Now I may have to review my lens consideration list, and throw the PE-C lens back in the cauldron along with the others, who ever said choosing is easy.

Regards
Kurtis