- This topic has 5 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 2 weeks, 3 days ago by
.
- Posts
All,
I’m currently debating between the these 2 lenses for Real Estate interior exterior, Pano/360 virtual tour (mainly real estate interior and exterior) and Landscape/Landscape Panorama usage. Kindly requesting advice to help me decide which one to go with.
I have a D850 body and already using a 8mm Sigma circular fisheye for the 360 VT process.
I have the impression, that one of the above Nikon lenses could give me a relative high picture quality gain – compared to the Sigma fisheye – which can be useful when it comes to Real Estate interior presentation. Also I can use the 20mm focal length to create required and separate images for the interior with relative low effort/time spent on post processing. (distortion, CA etc) while I know with the 20mm focal length would require more shots to create the 360 when it comes to the 360 VT.Obviously the 14-24 is more versatile, 14-20mm wide range can be useful in tight spaces however the lens was released in 2007, comes with a steep price tag, heavy – almost 1 kg, and limited/specific filter availability.
The 20mm fix is half the price of the 14-24, image quality is very close to the 14-24 – based on the test images I’ve seen so far in various forums – compared with the 14-24 at the same focal length and aperture, it is lightweight= 355g and can attach 77mm filters if required.
Thanks in advance!
I have a friend who does a lot of real estate photography, and she swears by the Nikon 16-35. She says the images are terrific, the zoom is versatile, and the VR often allows her to take shots without bringing in lighting or a tripod, saving a lot of time.
It’s definitely cheaper and lighter than the 14-24, and accepts filters.
This isn’t the kind of photography I do; just passing along the info.
Tamas, that’s a tough choice. The 20mm is a bit wide, so you will need to do a lot of stitching compared to 14-24mm. I have a friend who does 360 panos all the time, and he uses the 14-24mm f/2.8G exclusively. He has not been able to find a replacement for that lens.
The 16-35mm f/4 that Dave suggested is a good lens, but its corners aren’t particularly sharp, and its resolving power isn’t great on the D850. If you want the best results, I think the 14-24mm is the only proper answer for the F mount. Before you go with the Nikon though, check out the Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 Art as well. A lot of people swear by it, although I personally haven’t tried it out yet.
Sincerely,
Nasim Mansurov
https://photographylife.comMany Thanks Nasim!
Checking the prices, the Nikon 14-24 with my 15% discount is at the same price as the Sigma 14-24 art lens from a local supplier with no discount.
After reading the reviews regarding the Nik 16-35 F/4 I’ve decided to pass on that lens, since I have the Nik 24-70 F/2.8 ED non VR (which I love) and it will be a big overlap when it comes to focal range.
I’m aware of the Nikon ‘holy trinity’ series and since I already have the 24-70 it would be a logical choice to go with the Nik 14-24, but as you’ve stated above plenty of people swear by the sigma Art series.
From technical prospective it seems the Sigma is 150 gramm heavier than the Nikon, while it was released in 2017 vs the Nikon 2007.
Based on reviews the optical distortion is almost null on the Sigma, better CA handling, seems a bit sharper than the Nikon. I found reviews where people complained about focus issues, namely front or back focus at certain focal lengths and inconsistency across the range. I know it can be corrected/adjusted on the body – to some degree – and it can also happen with the Nikon zoom too.Now I’m scratching my head even more than before….
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.