Wide Angle Zoom Lens

[dbose]

I am thinking of buying a wide angle zoom FX lens for better landscape shots. I am tossing between the Nikon 16-35 F4 or the 17-35 F2.8. I'd have loved the 14-24 but with it's bulging front attaching filters is impossible (I use multiple filters for landscape shots). Really the options for wide angle zoom FX lenses seem to be limited. The 17-35 is more expensive due to the constant F2.8 factor whereas the 16-35 gives me an extra mm but the F4 factor is a bit :rolleyes: - however for landscape shots I hardly go below F4 anyway.

Thoughts...suggestions...please...

[peterb666]

I think you have already answered the question. How often do you shoot a landscape at f/2.8?

[BLWNHR]

I bought the 16-35 f/4 late last year. Simply put, it is a brilliant lens. I find UWA's don't give great DOF like a standard zoom (24-70 and the like), so the loss of one stop there isn't that big of a deal. But around 4 stops of VR is a huge advantage over 1 stop of light.

I bought it over the 14-24 because of the front element also. I have found no mentionable vignetting with a CPL attached. I stacked a Marumi ultra-thin CPL and a Hoya Pro ND8 and had to zoom to about 20mm to get rid of the vignetting. With those two filters plus the wide-angle Cokin fitting and ND4 Grad. I had to zoom to the full 35mm, but that was a lot of stacked filters.

Here are a one taken with that lens. (Thumbnail to keep the page clean.)
Stacked ND8 + CPL @ 24mm.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v197/blownhr/Photography/th__DSC3853.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v197/blownhr/Photography/?action=view&current=_DSC3853.jpg)

[Tommo1965]

ive just bought 17-35 F2.8 today:D..im interested also to see its performance....

[Tannin]

Let's see if I've got this straight:

There are three lenses -

14-24/2.8, $2400, 1.0kg, no VR, no filters

17-35/2.8, $2700, 0.75kg, no VR

16-35/4, $1900, 0.68kg, with both VR and a filter thread.

You mean there is even a question?

One of the three lenses is cheaper, lighter, can be used with filters, and it is the only one with VR. F/2.8 in an ultra-wide is very nearly pointless, and not half as useful as VR. The 14-24 is supposed to have superb image quality and the extra width would be nice, but 24mm max is inconveniently wide on FX ..... I don't know any of these lenses first hand, but I can't imagine that Nikon wouldn't do a nice job of a $1900 16-35/4, and I'd go for that one in a heartbeat!

[dbose]

Thanks All - I am all in for the 16-35 F/4. Now the next part finding the best deal and byuing it.;)

[Lance B]

I have both the 14-24 f2.8 and the 16-35 f4 VR. I had the 16-35 f4 VR first, but purchased the 14-24 really only for the extra 2mm at the wide end and to have an "option", otherwise I would have been perfectly happy with just the 16-35. I took this lens to Europe on my holiday there last year and found the VR indispensible for the interiors of those dimly lit churches, cathedrals and castles where using a tripod was not an option. I was often shooting at 1/5sec, ISO3200 and f13 (to get DOF), and VR was a wonderful feature! Otherwise I would have had to compromise on DOF, or ramp up the ISO even more.

The only real drawbacks are a little soft at the edges at the wider apertures like f4 and f5.6, but by f8 it sharpens up nicely and the other drawback is the distortion at 16-17mm, but this is easily correctible in post process. A hint for getting the best from it. When shooting for max DOF with a point of interest subject in the foreground, use f11+ and focus slightly toward the front rather or the subject matter rather than a distant object or rather than using the hyper focal distance for the given aperture and focal length. This will ensure that corners will be sharp and that your point of intertest in the forground is crisp.

The benefits of the 16-35 far outweigh any small niggles that this lens has. The fact you can use filters, has VR, and more zoom range than the others are factors in it's favour and once you get to know how to use it, it really is a superb lens, IMO.

[Tommo1965]

if I was buying this new..id go check them all out..I managed to get my 17-35 in a lightly used state..thus saving hundreds of dollars :th3:

ive taken some test images in failing light...F2.8 is softish...by f4 its sharp until you hit the extreme borders...F5.6 is sharp everywhere...contrast and lens flare look good for the handful of images currently taken,,,,build quality surpass's the 70-200VR II..but only just.....its one solid beast

Ill post some images when I have something worthwhile to post

[Tommo1965]

Let's see if I've got this straight:

There are three lenses -

14-24/2.8, $2400, 1.0kg, no VR, no filters

17-35/2.8, $2700, 0.75kg, no VR

16-35/4, $1900, 0.68kg, with both VR and a filter thread.

You mean there is even a question?

One of the three lenses is cheaper, lighter, can be used with filters, and it is the only one with VR. F/2.8 in an ultra-wide is very nearly pointless, and not half as useful as VR. The 14-24 is supposed to have superb image quality and the extra width would be nice, but 24mm max is inconveniently wide on FX ..... I don't know any of these lenses first hand, but I can't imagine that Nikon wouldn't do a nice job of a $1900 16-35/4, and I'd go for that one in a heartbeat!


you will only pay those prices if you silly enough to pay full retail...the 14-24 can be had at my local store for $2050...its on special..but most guys that are switched on pay the special prices all the time :D...although they caned me on my 70-200 Vr II....:(

the 17-35 is around $1600 at most OS vendors as is the 16-35

[Tommo1965]

I had the chance to try out the 16-35 Vr and the 14-24 back to back with my 17-35.....my finding are......the 14-24 was very good at F2.8..my 17-35 at F2.8 was not so good..soft edges and halos...at F4..it was pretty well equal....the 16-35 was very good at F4 equal to the other two...also has the advantage of Vr { very good}...but not such a good build quality as the other two...{all plastic barrel}..its not bad by any means...just not as good as the other two...and Id say the 17-35 is the most tank like of the lot


For use...Id agree with Lance..the 16-35 with its Vr would be very useful in low light...having said that...any lens at 17 mm or wider...is quite easy to hand hold at low shutter speed..Id have no issue with hand held shots at 1/8 with the 17-35 , the added weight of the 17-35 adds to its stability, as would the 14-24 ...
if your a filter user {me}..the 14-24 is out, lee filters are a option..but expensive...Id have to say the 14-24 is just too limited with its use to warrant its purchase..for me at least the 16-35 or the 17-35 makes more sense

handling..id say the 17-35 feels the best when coupled to my D300s. followed by the 14-24 and lastly the 16-35....the weight feels better distributed with the 17-35..the 14-24 is not far behind..the 16-35 feels too long and light...not as planted in your hand if you get my meaning

which one id buy new.. that's a tough one..best to try them all out Id say.....but after testing them my 17-35 certainly holds its own to the other two ...also the lack of filter use on the 14-24 would hit a negative.....my advise to everyone is try and pick up a lightly used 17-35...at $900 au..Im very very happy .. there's a few out there in the land of ebay ...if I were buying new..id grab a 16-35 VR or a overseas 17-35..

[RRRoger]

I've owned all three at the same time.
Soon after I got the 16-35, used 17-35 Nikkors went on fire sale so I picked up one used.
I do use f/2.8 a lot and VR almost never so I sent the 16-35 back and never regretted that.
Shooting all three at the same subject with in minutes, the 14-24 was the easy winner.
I seldom use or need filters either.

[Lance B]

I had the chance to try out the 16-35 Vr and the 14-24 back to back with my 17-35.....my finding are......the 14-24 was very good at F2.8..my 17-35 at F2.8 was not so good..soft edges and halos...at F4..it was pretty well equal....the 16-35 was very good at F4 equal to the other two...also has the advantage of Vr { very good}...but not such a good build quality as the other two...{all plastic barrel}..its not bad by any means...just not as good as the other two...and Id say the 17-35 is the most tank like of the lot


For use...Id agree with Lance..the 16-35 with its Vr would be very useful in low light...having said that...any lens at 17 mm or wider...is quite easy to hand hold at low shutter speed..Id have no issue with hand held shots at 1/8 with the 17-35 , the added weight of the 17-35 adds to its stability, as would the 14-24 ...
if your a filter user {me}..the 14-24 is out, lee filters are a option..but expensive...Id have to say the 14-24 is just too limited with its use to warrant its purchase..for me at least the 16-35 or the 17-35 makes more sense

handling..id say the 17-35 feels the best when coupled to my D300s. followed by the 14-24 and lastly the 16-35....the weight feels better distributed with the 17-35..the 14-24 is not far behind..the 16-35 feels too long and light...not as planted in your hand if you get my meaning

which one id buy new.. that's a tough one..best to try them all out Id say.....but after testing them my 17-35 certainly holds its own to the other two ...also the lack of filter use on the 14-24 would hit a negative.....my advise to everyone is try and pick up a lightly used 17-35...at $900 au..Im very very happy .. there's a few out there in the land of ebay ...if I were buying new..id grab a 16-35 VR or a overseas 17-35..

That's a good write up, Tommo.

[Tommo1965]

I've owned all three at the same time.
Soon after I got the 16-35, used 17-35 Nikkors went on fire sale so I picked up one used.
I do use f/2.8 a lot and VR almost never so I sent the 16-35 back and never regretted that.
Shooting all three at the same subject with in minutes, the 14-24 was the easy winner.
I seldom use or need filters either.

hows F2.8 on your copy of the 17-35..?

[RRRoger]

hows F2.8 on your copy of the 17-35..?

Very sharp! :) And, a lot better in low light than the 16-35 with VR.
I also find it better for action shots.
All three lens are good at f/8, almost any Nikkor is unless it is defective.

[I @ M]

Just to raise to another alternative.

Tokina announced a 17-35 F/4 lens at the last photokina and it went basically uncommented on.
It seems that the new lens has been released and may be a viable alternative depending on price an image quality.

Going purely on the google translated specs and Tokina lenses in general ---

For;
Fairly light weight.
Will take screw in filters.
Should be attractively priced.
Should be very good build quality.

Against;
No VR.
82 mm filters are expensive.

Google translated specification page (http://translate.google.com.au/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://www.tokina.co.jp/camera-lenses/wide-lenses/at-x-17-35-f4-pro-fx.html&ei=gT8CTrijDI2ovQPCmKDNAg&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=14&ved=0CIUBEO4BMA0&prev=/search%3Fq%3DAT-X%2B17-35%2BF4%2BPRO%2BFX%26num%3D100%26hl%3Den%26newwindow%3D1%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG%26biw%3D1440%26bih%3D783%26prmd%3Divns).

Image samples (http://www.kenko-tokina.co.jp/tokina/atx17-35.html) ( click the rectangular box just under each image to download a fairly large jpg. )