Originally Posted by jc9394
Originally Posted by Currawong
I ended up buying the Tamron 24-70mm, since it as sharp, but a lot cheaper and more compact than the Nikon. I have been using the 16-35mm which I got to cover the times when I'd want to use the 14-24mm and a 28 or 35mm. I found though that as switching from wide to ultra-wide requires a change in mentality when shooting that is too easy to zoom out and forget this. Given the rate at which the 14-24mm keeps turning up s/h around here it has been tempting me to do the same switch.
If you can find one mint/excellent condition, you really should upgrade. It is much sharper than the 16-35, especially at the edges and corners at the widest. The 16-35 is kind of mushy. I never noticed that until I received the 14-24.
I'm in two minds about it still. I didn't find the 16-35mm mushy at all. It isn't as sharp as the Tamron 24-70mm but I wasn't disappointed with the sharpness I did get from it. Some of that might have come from it simply being wide all the time and that I end up cropping a lot as a result, especially when trying to capture my kids and their friends doing funny things.
Originally Posted by bigshot
Or just stop it down to f/5.6 and all lenses are basically the same.
I took identical shots with half a dozen lenses at 35mm-1/60-f11 of an identical view with identical light and it was very easy to see the difference in sharpness on the D800. So I can say, from actual testing, no they are not "basically the same", but then I have a D800. I can only wish that I could have just used the $80 second-hand old 24-70mm f3.5-5.6 instead of the Tamron to get just as clear shots.
Edited by Currawong - 1/31/14 at 3:23am