Skip to content


  1. Patrick O'Connor
    October 18, 2020 @ 5:14 am

    I’m very surprised at your comparison of the 16-35 to the 14-24. I have literally never read ANY other comparison that puts them in the same ballpark in terms of image quality or sharpness. I have the 16-35 and have always thought it only “meh”. At some point, I want to get the 14-24 but might keep the 16-35 or replace it with Tamron’s 15-30 just to have VR for when it’s darker and a tripod is either not allowed or impractical.


    • Nigel Waters
      October 18, 2020 @ 10:40 am

      Hi Patrick, Thanks for your comment.

      I have heavily relied on my 16-35 over the years to be honest and always found it to be very sharp and a great lens. There are lab tests out there comparing sharpness but I don’t really care too much for these and like I said I do find as you would expect my 14-24 slightly sharper but it is marginal at f9-f13 where I mostly use it. I am lucky as I have both but I hardly ever use the 14-24 now for landscape purely because of its size and weight but it is an awesome lens. If you want or need fast glass then yes the 14-24 is the obvious choice. But for practical reasons I rarely leave the house without my 16-35 on a landscape shoot.

      I can’t comment on the Tamron as I have never used it but whenever I have used the VR on the 16-35 in seriously high winds or rare low light handheld situations I found it performed very well.

      If you do swap to the Tamron please let me know how you get on as I would like to hear how you think it compares.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.