Until Nikon officially announce they are ceasing the production and service of F mount products via their website, media release or newsletter, that’s when I’ll believe it. People “who know a guy” with zero authority on the matter typing stab in the dark comments that F mount has been discontinued or is selling remaining stock until depleted are just guessing. Plain and simple! Depending on when you watch this video, maybe months or years from when it was made. Don’t bother wasting your time informing me in the comments that Nikon have now stopped manufacturing F mount products. 1. I probably already know. 2. I honestly don’t care 🤷♂ Hope you enjoyed the video and has helped with your choice of lens 🙏📸
I personally use the Nikon 14-24mm for landscapes and astro, amazing lens that gets some great shots on my D850. I keep an AF-S 24-120mm in my bag for my general purpose that has served my just fine for several years. It's a versatile combo.
Ultimately for me it was weight and fear of damaging the front element on the 14-24 that pushed me to the 16-35. I may still pickup a used 14-24 if the right one and the right price comes along but for now I’m perfectly happy with the 16-35.
Nice comparison. I have recently re-purchased the 16-35mm, because I wanted a Wide Angle that can take 77mm filters, plus it is lighter. Instead of the 14-24mm I have a Tamron 15-30mm, which needs fiddly square filters, and is heavy.
Great comparison and makes it far easier for people to choose one or the other - depending on how much they have to spend & what they need to do with it. Again fabulous sample shots with both, the photographer behind the camera is probably the most important factor of all!
Adrian, I have continued to buy both F mount lenses and cameras. In the last two years, I purchased a second D750 (used) and 2 D850s (despite owning the Z9). I have also purchased both Nikon and TAMRON F mount glass to support my needs with both F mount cameras and using them on the Z bodies with adapters. There is much to be said for both systems and I agree with you. Who cares what the naysayers report?
I own and use the 14-24mm f/2.8 Nikkor auto focus zoom lens. I have never owned or used the 16-35mm f/4 auto focus zoom lens because the f/4 maximum aperture is too slow for my style and subject matter. I do, however, own and use a Nikkor 20-35mm f/2.8 auto focus zoom lens.
Great side by side comparison Adrian! I was actually more surprised at the difference between 24mm & 35mm! I never realized 11mm was such a a difference! These look like two amazing Nikon lenses. I've thought about buying a 14mm lens before but I've always found that 16mm has been plenty wide for most things I shoot - still would be nice to have in the arsenal though! Great info as always mate! Enjoy the rest of your weekend!
Thanks Paul. You’re right 16mm is plenty especially in landscape. I use each lens to their strengths. Hope you’re well mate. Take care and enjoy your weekend 👍🙏
Nice comparison the 16-35mm does look like the better value. Sure the 14-24mm may be a little sharper but I have never had someone complement one of my landscape photos because it was sharp. Presently I am looking at the NIKON 70-200 f2.8VRII for my Z7 and wondering how well it works compared to the Z version. Huge difference in price....Thank you
Thanks for watching Tony. I use my 70-200 VRII on my Z7 and get great results. People keep telling me, “oh you should get the Z version- it’s much better.” Granted those people are just trying to justify spending a small fortune on that lens. But honestly at the end of the day the difference is just not worth the money you have to pay.
Great comparison, Adrian! I never knew there was such a noticeable sharpness difference between those two, even at f/8! I've regretted not getting the 16-35 since I got into landscape photography. I bought the 14-24 for low-light ultra-wide concert photography where it really shines! I was shopping for a 16-35 used as recently as last week! When I picked my ultra-wide for Canon R I bought the lightweight 14-35 f/4 instead of their 15-30 f/2.8 and I love that thing.
Great in-depth comparison mate. It’ll be useful for many Nikon users I’m sure. By the way I just heard a rumour from a legit source that the F mount….🤣🤣🤣
Thanks for watching Peter. Yeah I heard from my friend's, neighbour's, Uncle's, other friend's, friend (who used to work at Canon) that anyone will believe anything they read on the internet 😂 Enjoy your weekend mate.
I dropped my 850 with the 16-35 attached, the lens had the hood on and it got just a scratch. Had it been the 14-24 I’d be still crying. Not as brilliant, still a beast of a lens. And difference between 14-16mm is quite noticeable so if this is important the 14 is the winner. For me it was lightweight, extra zoom to 35 and price, mostly used to photograph protests and groups. I still want the 14-24.
I own both and I would hate to part with either of them. What puzzles me though in this review is the disregard, or at least lack of mention of the fact that the 16-35 offers a substantially greater zoom range and thus is a more versatile lens. (Or did I miss something?) If you were packing light you could get by with this zoom and a short to medium telephoto. Aside from this a very interesting review. Thanks!
Had both of these lenses, sold the 16-35mm years ago since it couldn't keep up with high res sensor of the D850. But still own the 14-24mm. I just see no point at buying any of these new in 2024. Here in Europe the used market is full of 14-24mm's since at lot of people are transitioning to Z-mount and you can easily pick up one for 500-600 USD
Hello Adrian ❤ thank you for your valuable content! I am very much in between these lenses. My question is, will the 16-35 catch the stars in the sky? I understand the 14 is better but wooo even used these babies hold their price steady. I’m going to a trip to Maui where we will be on the top of a volcano, and at night there will be a ton of stars, and there’s nothing more that I’d love then to take a photo of them! It’s always been a dream of mine.
I just checked, and the 20mm af-s that would fit my Nikon d5100 would cost the same as the 14-24 lens here in the US. The 16-35 is about $100 less. So if it can still capture the stars, It’s a winner for me!
@@OhitsB333 your camera is DX format. You need to look for DX lenses. All the lenses in this video and the one I recommended are FX lenses. I have limited knowledge of DX as Ive never used those cameras or lenses
@@adrianalfordphotography she is an older one, thank you! I currently use NIKKOR AF-S lenses, and I am doing my best to understand everything :’) thank you for your time, more learning to go!
@@adrianalfordphotography it all just clicked for me! I have been speaking to a store online that suggested a lens, but it was not a dx. Thank you so much for helping me understand this. Take care 🫶🏼
The question for me is not whether one lens is sharper than the other but is any difference relevant? If I shoot the same scene at the same stop with both and print to say A3 from the full frame and view at a normal distance (1.5 to 2x the diagonal ) will I be able to tell which is sharper?
Greetings. It is I. I have come back from the future once again to tell you that three months later, in June of 2024, these lenses are all the way down to $1600 for the 14-24mm f/2.8G and $1000 for the 16-35mm f/4 VR... and I'm no closer to making up my mind between the two.
I bought the 14-24 at launch, but had so much flare troubles with backlit subjects as well as temporary decentering in harsh climate conditions in Iceland (one side heated up by sun and the other side chilled down by the wind) that I bought the 16-35 VR that made pictures without the flaws of the 14-24. Today I have still both but rarely use the 14-24.
Nice video , im still unsure which lens to get tho. The 16-35mm range seems nice, f4 should be okay but sometimes i would need the f2.8 . Then the 14-24 really the 14mm is nice, f2.8 too but no quick filter thread is annoying and no vr could be negative. Then we have the tamron 15-30 f2.8 which has f2.8, no filter thread but vr. I am using a D800 and unsure which to pick if price doesnt matter. I mainly do cityscapes and close up/cockpit airplane photography.
Hi Adrian, interesting video, buddy! Quite interesting that the 14-24 is sharper than the 16-35, I had guessed the opposite, to be honest 😊 My Sony 12-24GM is sharp, but not as sharp as the 16-35GM. But maybe these 2 extra mm also make here the difference according to sharpness 😆 Thank you for the video, enjoy your weekend, Christian
Thank you for watching Christian. Some of the tests I didn't share did surprise me a little. But mostly ended up as I said. The 14-24mm was quite a bit better. Still that 16-35mm does the job for me in my landscape shots with different filters. Have a great weekend buddy cheers 📸🙏
I bought both - the 14-24 for when I know i'll need the ultrawide and otherwise the 16-35 just in case I might need one. The 14-24 is far superior but fitting filters is much earier in the 16-35... 🦘
Until Nikon officially announce they are ceasing the production and service of F mount products via their website, media release or newsletter, that’s when I’ll believe it.
People “who know a guy” with zero authority on the matter typing stab in the dark comments that F mount has been discontinued or is selling remaining stock until depleted are just guessing. Plain and simple!
Depending on when you watch this video, maybe months or years from when it was made. Don’t bother wasting your time informing me in the comments that Nikon have now stopped manufacturing F mount products.
1. I probably already know.
2. I honestly don’t care 🤷♂
Hope you enjoyed the video and has helped with your choice of lens 🙏📸
Well said. I'm so fed up with keyboard experts and the "he said, she said" stuff.
Adrian, would you do a comparison of the 14-24 F2.8G with the 14-30 f4S?
@@leod1671 no worries - I will in the future 👍
Thanks for your great content! Just bought the 16-35 off eBay for $350 to use for landscape on my D850. Can’t wait to start using it!
@@mikearcher6239 that’s an awesome combo - definitely my go to combo for landscapes 👍
Great comparison Adrian between these two wide angle lenses. Plenty info on the two - have a great weekend.
Thank you Shaun for watching. Hope you have a wonderful weekend over there. Cheers mate 👍🙏
I personally use the Nikon 14-24mm for landscapes and astro, amazing lens that gets some great shots on my D850. I keep an AF-S 24-120mm in my bag for my general purpose that has served my just fine for several years. It's a versatile combo.
Ultimately for me it was weight and fear of damaging the front element on the 14-24 that pushed me to the 16-35. I may still pickup a used 14-24 if the right one and the right price comes along but for now I’m perfectly happy with the 16-35.
Nice comparison. I have recently re-purchased the 16-35mm, because I wanted a Wide Angle that can take 77mm filters, plus it is lighter. Instead of the 14-24mm I have a Tamron 15-30mm, which needs fiddly square filters, and is heavy.
Amazing review
Great comparison and makes it far easier for people to choose one or the other - depending on how much they have to spend & what they need to do with it. Again fabulous sample shots with both, the photographer behind the camera is probably the most important factor of all!
Top comment. Thank you for watching and yes it boils down to budget and the photographer behind the camera. Have a great weekend 🙏
Adrian, I have continued to buy both F mount lenses and cameras. In the last two years, I purchased a second D750 (used) and 2 D850s (despite owning the Z9). I have also purchased both Nikon and TAMRON F mount glass to support my needs with both F mount cameras and using them on the Z bodies with adapters.
There is much to be said for both systems and I agree with you. Who cares what the naysayers report?
Prices for F mount glass is plummeting. I will happily scoop up the bargains. Leaning 14-24 on used value alone.
I own and use the 14-24mm f/2.8 Nikkor auto focus zoom lens.
I have never owned or used the 16-35mm f/4 auto focus zoom lens because the f/4 maximum aperture is too slow for my style and subject matter.
I do, however, own and use a Nikkor 20-35mm f/2.8 auto focus zoom lens.
Great side by side comparison Adrian! I was actually more surprised at the difference between 24mm & 35mm! I never realized 11mm was such a a difference! These look like two amazing Nikon lenses. I've thought about buying a 14mm lens before but I've always found that 16mm has been plenty wide for most things I shoot - still would be nice to have in the arsenal though! Great info as always mate! Enjoy the rest of your weekend!
Thanks Paul. You’re right 16mm is plenty especially in landscape. I use each lens to their strengths. Hope you’re well mate. Take care and enjoy your weekend 👍🙏
Nice comparison the 16-35mm does look like the better value. Sure the 14-24mm may be a little sharper but I have never had someone complement one of my landscape photos because it was sharp. Presently I am looking at the NIKON 70-200 f2.8VRII for my Z7 and wondering how well it works compared to the Z version. Huge difference in price....Thank you
Thanks for watching Tony. I use my 70-200 VRII on my Z7 and get great results. People keep telling me, “oh you should get the Z version- it’s much better.” Granted those people are just trying to justify spending a small fortune on that lens. But honestly at the end of the day the difference is just not worth the money you have to pay.
Great comparison, Adrian! I never knew there was such a noticeable sharpness difference between those two, even at f/8! I've regretted not getting the 16-35 since I got into landscape photography. I bought the 14-24 for low-light ultra-wide concert photography where it really shines! I was shopping for a 16-35 used as recently as last week! When I picked my ultra-wide for Canon R I bought the lightweight 14-35 f/4 instead of their 15-30 f/2.8 and I love that thing.
Thanks for watching Phil. Yeah that Canon 14-35mm F4 would be my pick for landscape if I had Canon gear. Great lens. Have a fantastic weekend mate 🙏
Everything about the 16-35mm sells itself! I stop down for landscape anyway and 16mm is plenty wide enough for me.
Thanks for watching David. Have a great weekend 🙏
Great in-depth comparison mate. It’ll be useful for many Nikon users I’m sure. By the way I just heard a rumour from a legit source that the F mount….🤣🤣🤣
Thanks for watching Peter. Yeah I heard from my friend's, neighbour's, Uncle's, other friend's, friend (who used to work at Canon) that anyone will believe anything they read on the internet 😂 Enjoy your weekend mate.
@@adrianalfordphotography 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Great perspective Adrian , was looking forward to watching it👍
Thank you for watching 🙏
Great! Last year I went with Tokina Opera 16-28 f/2.8, but still truly glad for this vid!
Thanks for watching 🙏
The 14-24 is always on my d850. It’s kind of glued to it. I have many others but this one is always there.
Thanks for watching 🙏
Nice one Adrian, thanks for the comparison. Interesting about the sharpness, good to know. Cheers.
Thanks for watching Brad. Enjoy your weekend 🙏
I dropped my 850 with the 16-35 attached, the lens had the hood on and it got just a scratch. Had it been the 14-24 I’d be still crying. Not as brilliant, still a beast of a lens. And difference between 14-16mm is quite noticeable so if this is important the 14 is the winner. For me it was lightweight, extra zoom to 35 and price, mostly used to photograph protests and groups. I still want the 14-24.
I own both and I would hate to part with either of them. What puzzles me though in this review is the disregard, or at least lack of mention of the fact that the 16-35 offers a substantially greater zoom range and thus is a more versatile lens. (Or did I miss something?) If you were packing light you could get by with this zoom and a short to medium telephoto. Aside from this a very interesting review. Thanks!
Had both of these lenses, sold the 16-35mm years ago since it couldn't keep up with high res sensor of the D850. But still own the 14-24mm.
I just see no point at buying any of these new in 2024. Here in Europe the used market is full of 14-24mm's since at lot of people are transitioning to Z-mount and you can easily pick up one for 500-600 USD
Hello Adrian ❤ thank you for your valuable content! I am very much in between these lenses. My question is, will the 16-35 catch the stars in the sky? I understand the 14 is better but wooo even used these babies hold their price steady. I’m going to a trip to Maui where we will be on the top of a volcano, and at night there will be a ton of stars, and there’s nothing more that I’d love then to take a photo of them! It’s always been a dream of mine.
@@OhitsB333 my solution to your situation - look at the Nikon 20mm F1.8G F mount - perfect for stars
I just checked, and the 20mm af-s that would fit my Nikon d5100 would cost the same as the 14-24 lens here in the US. The 16-35 is about $100 less. So if it can still capture the stars, It’s a winner for me!
@@OhitsB333 your camera is DX format. You need to look for DX lenses. All the lenses in this video and the one I recommended are FX lenses. I have limited knowledge of DX as Ive never used those cameras or lenses
@@adrianalfordphotography she is an older one, thank you! I currently use NIKKOR AF-S lenses, and I am doing my best to understand everything :’) thank you for your time, more learning to go!
@@adrianalfordphotography it all just clicked for me! I have been speaking to a store online that suggested a lens, but it was not a dx. Thank you so much for helping me understand this. Take care 🫶🏼
The question for me is not whether one lens is sharper than the other but is any difference relevant? If I shoot the same scene at the same stop with both and print to say A3 from the full frame and view at a normal distance (1.5 to 2x the diagonal ) will I be able to tell which is sharper?
Greetings. It is I. I have come back from the future once again to tell you that three months later, in June of 2024, these lenses are all the way down to $1600 for the 14-24mm f/2.8G and $1000 for the 16-35mm f/4 VR... and I'm no closer to making up my mind between the two.
I have the 10-24 Dx version..loved it for 10 years
Thanks for watching Woody 🙏
Its almost like you read my mind, exactly what I was looking for! Thanks Adrian
I bought the 14-24 at launch, but had so much flare troubles with backlit subjects as well as temporary decentering in harsh climate conditions in Iceland (one side heated up by sun and the other side chilled down by the wind) that I bought the 16-35 VR that made pictures without the flaws of the 14-24. Today I have still both but rarely use the 14-24.
Good review
Nice video , im still unsure which lens to get tho. The 16-35mm range seems nice, f4 should be okay but sometimes i would need the f2.8 . Then the 14-24 really the 14mm is nice, f2.8 too but no quick filter thread is annoying and no vr could be negative. Then we have the tamron 15-30 f2.8 which has f2.8, no filter thread but vr. I am using a D800 and unsure which to pick if price doesnt matter. I mainly do cityscapes and close up/cockpit airplane photography.
Hi Adrian, interesting video, buddy! Quite interesting that the 14-24 is sharper than the 16-35, I had guessed the opposite, to be honest 😊 My Sony 12-24GM is sharp, but not as sharp as the 16-35GM. But maybe these 2 extra mm also make here the difference according to sharpness 😆
Thank you for the video, enjoy your weekend,
Christian
Thank you for watching Christian. Some of the tests I didn't share did surprise me a little. But mostly ended up as I said. The 14-24mm was quite a bit better. Still that 16-35mm does the job for me in my landscape shots with different filters. Have a great weekend buddy cheers 📸🙏
I bought both - the 14-24 for when I know i'll need the ultrawide and otherwise the 16-35 just in case I might need one.
The 14-24 is far superior but fitting filters is much earier in the 16-35... 🦘