Go PRO or Go PRIME? (Lens questions)

[chamellieon]

Hi All,

I'm at the stage where I want a new wide angle lens. I've been shooting with Nikon's 18-35mm Lens for the last year and a bit, and while I love it, I just feel like I'm starting to miss out on the qualities of a prime, or a pro lens.

So here's my thought process:

Nikon 16-35mm f4 Nano coated... gold ring goodness... wow, $1500 is about the cheapest it comes, the 16 wide end really appeals, and since Ive been using the 18-35mm, I can see how this would be beneficial.

But then..

I'm also feeling a little tempted by the Nikon 24mm f2.8 - reports from around the internet suggest its a great little lens. Or even the 20mm 2.8 OR the Sigma 20mm 1.8....

I could say, save my $1500 and buy the 16-35mm
or save a bit more and get the 17-35mm 2.8...?

(im so confused when it comes to these, with 1mm being the $300 difference..)
or
I could spend equal to that on a couple of lenses... Ive got my eye on some sigma equivalents...

Can anyone woo me further in to the 16-35mm? Early reports seem to suggest its nikon's best wide angle.. but f4? what's that about?

[kiwi]

all you need to know

http://www.bythom.com/20lens.htm

[chamellieon]

So i take it Kiwi you'd endorse the 20mm 2.8 over the 16-35mm?

[Wayne]

The 16-35 is certainly not Nikkor's best wide angle lens. The 17-35 & 14-24 are both superior. The 16-35 can be had for US$1000 new, and the 17-35mm for about the same exc++ used, or a little more mint.

The 1mm difference between the 2 zooms is not here or there, and the extra stop of light isn't much different given the 16-35mm also has VR, and lets face it, most WA are used for landscapes on tripods, so on face value they are almost twins. The difference is in the glass quality with the 17-35mm being the staple Nikon pro WA for some years, and with it now being under valued somewhat by the arrival of the 16-35, it is an excellent buy.

One note for the 17-35 is that they squeak when auto-focusing, and almost every single one will do it unless it is brand new. They still AF properly and while many scaremongers will tell you it's going to shit the SWM (Silent wave motor) they usually plod along for many years without issue. Most will squeak only for the first few movements of the SWM when it has been sitting a while, then they go silent.

[kiwi]

So i take it Kiwi you'd endorse the 20mm 2.8 over the 16-35mm?

I have the former and not the latter. I cant comment on the w/a zooms

I find the 20mm wide enough on FX for my occassional landscapes and things like group shots, it's small, light and just fits in the camera bag so easily and is sharp as a tack

[I @ M]

Also worth considering after a few sample images have popped up on the net and can be had for a bargain price is the Tokina 16-28 (http://www.kenko-tokina.co.jp/tokina/atx16-28.html). If you click the bar under the sample images at that link the full resolution jpg downloads for you to pixel peep..

We have an order in for one when they hit Australia but they are in stock at B&H (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/735453-REG/Tokina_ATX168PROFXN_AT_X_16_28mm_F2_8_Pro.html) and Adorama (http://www.adorama.com/TN1628NKAF.html) now.

[chamellieon]

I already have the 35mm f2...
I seem to be more liking collecting primes, rather than bulky zooms..
the 14-24 is nice, but can't do filters on the front I'm told...which kind of rules out the ND400 that I was going to slap onto it for the bulk of my landscape shooting

[kiwi]

If you are at the meet Sunday you can have a play or borrow my 20 if you'd like

[chamellieon]

Also worth considering after a few sample images have popped up on the net and can be had for a bargain price is the Tokina 16-28 (http://www.kenko-tokina.co.jp/tokina/atx16-28.html). If you click the bar under the sample images at that link the full resolution jpg downloads for you to pixel peep..
.

On a D700?
Everything Tokina ive seen recently has all been for crop sensors

[chamellieon]

If you are at the meet Sunday you can have a play or borrow my 20 if you'd like

I'm going to try my hardest to get to the meet, though if its fine I won't be (working bee) ((stupid parents demanding my time))
but that'd be great for sure if I can make it

[I @ M]

On a D700?
Everything Tokina ive seen recently has all been for crop sensors

the sample images at that link are taken with a D3x, no doubts on that one being suited to FX bodies.

[chamellieon]

the sample images at that link are taken with a D3x, no doubts on that one being suited to FX bodies.

let me know how yours goes... however the lack of affixing filters to the front element is a major con for me - need to be able to attach filters!

[kiwi]

well, you dont need to attach filters, it might be esaier but sometimes not, from what I gather

[Wayne]

the 14-24 is nice, but can't do filters on the front I'm told...which kind of rules out the ND400 that I was going to slap onto it for the bulk of my landscape shooting

Yes you can, Lee make a good kit for it.

[vanngirl]

I have a 24mm/2.8 which I do love love love, but that doesn't stop me wanting the 17-35. I'm interested in architecture, real estate, interior type work and I think this will be a great lens for that. I've yet to try one though, so can only share your confusion. (although I did choose the 17-35 over the 16-35, which was a hard enough decision)

[ncbuxton]

For architecture think 24mm Tilt/ Shift. Doesn't do a bad job as a straight WA. Zoom: 14-24mm.

[lovecolt]

Personally, i would go with what some suggested 14-24, which is one of the Holy Trio from Nikon. Personally, i don't see much point of the 16-35 or 17-35 as they are neither too wide or too zoom to be of much use (aka jack of all trade)

[vanngirl]

I guess you don't know until you've used the lens for a while, if it suits your needs, or your style. that's the tricky part.

[chamellieon]

I do shoot mostly wide-angle for landscapes, but im worried about the distortion of 14mm and I do use up to 35mm quite often.
While the 14-24mm is a superb lens no doubt, my "serious hobbyist" budget simply cannot afford this level of grandeur... adding to the worry is the often rugged-styles of photo outings I go on, and having such a large bulbous front, that cannot be protected by a filter, is yet another issue for me, not to mention the cost of investing in Lee filters, when their production is so behind schedule anyway.

After a bit of a look, the 17-35 does woo me for its 2.8ness... its around about $200 difference depending on where Id buy.. $1600 from grey market in AUS and $1300 from grey market in HK.
With the new releases of FX lenses, all including Nano Crystal Coating, its hard not to fall for these...

[Wayne]

Just be aware, the 17-35 Nikkor doesn't have Nano Crystal Coat, the 24-70 does and the 16-35 does.

[jim]

I have an 18-35 and it's really quite good. Might not pay to spend a lot on an upgrade unless there's something particular that you're missing. If it was me I wouldn't bother with the 16-35 or the 17-35 (actually it is me, and I'm not bothering with them) but I can see the point of the 14-24 or a nice portable fast prime. But which focal lengths are really important to you? The opening post doesn't really make that clear and you need to know if you're going to go for a prime lens.

[arthurking83]

I'd have to say, that from a general usage point of view, nothing will beat the 16-35/4. While it has it's disadvantages, it has a lot more advantages over almost all the lenses listed so far.(just ask maccaroneski who forgot to bring his tripod the other day! :D)

General consensus is that this lens is slightly better than the famous(in Nikon circles) 17-35/2.8.
if it's speed you need then the f/2.8 is the better lens, then you obviously want that one.
The Tokina that I@M mentions seems to produce great images(I've downloaded some NEF files made with it, and they were very high quality!! :th3:)

From my (limited) experience, nano coating seems to be much adieu about nothing, whereas the real key to good IQ seems to be simple ED (or Super ED) glass elements.

if size of the lens was of the utmost priority, then I'm sure a prime lens would be more appropriate, but my line of thinking is that if the prime is going to offer more advantages, it has to be more than just about the size and weight savings. A faster.. much faster!! aperture is high on the list of things to want. non telephoto f/2.8 primes (in my view) are a bit of a waste. At the minimum I'd want them to be f/2(as your 35mm) but realistically f/1.8 is good, and f/1.4 is ideal/perfect.

Therefore, I see the vast majority of Nikon's wide primes(most being f/2.8's) almost like a wasted effort.
Nikon's newer faster 24 and 35 f/1.4's both seem to be perfect apart from cost.. but that will one day eventually sort itself out, when the initial hoohah settles.

As I see it, going by the original post and then the subsequent reply (
I do shoot mostly wide-angle for landscapes, you won't see much benefit in using the speed of an f/2.8, and so an f/4 lens is closer to ideal.

Given that the 16-35mm has VR(more of an advantage in some cases than f/2.8) then the obvious choice here is 16-35 lens.

If you were to find yourself doing more lower light photography not in the 'still' genre, and you needed faster shutter speeds, then the 17-35 would be more ideal(VR would be less of an advantage).

While the 20 and 24mm f/2.8 primes are good lenses, everything I've ever read about these lenses is that the 17-35 can do at least 99% of what they're capable of achieving in terms of outright IQ, and in some respects the zoom lens is better at each respective focal length too.. those primes are really old designs.
Just a matter of perspective, read the PhotoZone test review of the respective lenses to get an idea of why the Nikon zooms are so well respected.
As an example, the 17-35mm lens is sharper(by a significant margin) at 24mm than the 24mm f/2.8 is at apertures up to f/4!! :confused:
SO!!... if the prime lens is f/2.8 capable, and the zoom lens is sharper at both f/2.8 and f/4, and the prime lens is only starting to get sharp at f/5.6(only about 1% better image sharpness than the zoom lens).. why on earth would you want the prime lens?(apart from size and cost).

According to Thom Hogan, the 20/2.8 gets 4(out of 5) stars for all performance categories he rates(features, performance, build, and value). The 17-35/2.8 gets the same 4 stars for features and value, but gets 5 stars for performance and build!).. ;)

Finally: If you already have a filter system for your 18-35(being 77mm) then you also have no need to change anything with respect to your filtering needs. All the primes of the f/2.8 AF-D era use either 52 or 62 mm front filter threads.. so you also have to chase up new filters(polarisers) or adapter holder rings(Lee system) as well. The newer fast(f/1.4) wide primes use 77mm filter threads, so this makes filtering a lot easier to manage.

I think the choice is a lot easier considering the lenses called into the equation, and they'd be the 17-35/2.8 or the 16-35/4 with it's VR.
I think for still shots(no subject movement) the VR will ultimately win over the faster aperture lens for more consistent sharp handheld shots, but VR will never help to increase shutter speed, if you ever feel that a faster shutter speed is required for whatever purpose.(people shots, wildlife, flowers in the wind.. etc,etc ...)

if money was a concern, then maybe the Tokina 16-28/2.8 could be in contention, but I think it's still quite an expensive item ATM, as it's still quite new. :confused:
it seems that (according to the BHPhoto prices) the Tokina is approx $900, and the Nikon 17-35/2.8 @ $1500. In this case the Nikon is going to be better value for money(AF-S is such a bonus to have.. even on a 'landscape' lens).

[chamellieon]

THANKS arthurking83!
as always a very informed opinion, much respected :)
So once again the decision has come down to the 16-35mm f4 VR OR the 17-35mm f2.8
I admit that I'm leaning towards the 17-35mm 2.8 after inital reports and digging around - why?
Ive got VR 1 on my 18-200mm that I use on my D300s, and while its a very nice "option" to have, I honestly think that ill use the 2.8 more...

The Tokina 16-28mm 2.8 offers a great third contention, its speed plus the 16mm on the wide end is hugely attractive, plus price. My only problem is STILL filters, as I use the Hoya 77mm ND400 and the Cokin P set of filters - overcoming the fixed lens hood would most likely be more expensive than simply saving that bit more cash and buying the 17-35mm. (especially with the global shortage in both Cokin and Lee filters)

[Dylan & Marianne]

I do know that a very competent photographer friend of mine has recently bought a nikon 14-24 2.8 ( he uses the 2.8 alot for night photography with auroras in iceland) and has found it far superior in terms of the extra 2mm compared to the canon 16-35mm.
He uses a lee filter system (albeit with 100X150mm filters unfortunately) on it with some modifications (personalised)
If you want to have a look at some of his results or get in contact with his experiences, you can check his site out at arcticphoto.is

though I have zero experience out at 14mm on FF, there are times at 16mm when I wish I did.
For night photography, and star photography, the 2.8 lenses you listed gives you a lot more scope for "star freezing" compositions.