Yes I hear the 14-24mm is fine for the D800 if you can stand not using filters. You also might want to take a look at the 21mm Zeiss ZF lens which a lot of people are swearing by for the D800. Once my graduate studies are done in the spring I'll be purchasing the 14-24mm and another wide angle that can take filters either the 17-35 or 16-35. I love my zooms :)

I'm using the 16-35 on a D800E and it is wonderful. I have 20mm f/2.8 and 35mm f/2.0 AF-D Nikkors for when I need a wider aperture.

The 16-35 is a great lens, just watch out for the extreme sample variation, decentering and general lack of sharpness is very common with them, made in Japan or not.

I don't have personal experience with this Tokina in question, but the Tokina is not that much cheaper. It's a no brainer in my opinion, even as an investment, with the 16-35 you don't really need a wide angle Zeiss, it's sharp enough and the VR is really great on it. I remember seeing a test video of the Tokina where the guy compared it to a 14-24 and overall he had a good impression of it, but at times it failed to focus on his camera(d700 I think with normal phase detection). The Tokina is also not really a good investment, the resale value is not exactly close to the new price, whilst a 16-35 can be sold for as much as 1100usd.

Also about Canon 17-40L, apart from corner sharpness it's a very strong contender, when stopped down the contrast and color is really great, something that I'm not sure can be said about any budget oriented third party lens.

If by Voigtländer you mean the Voigtlander Color Skopar 20mm f/3.5 SL-II pancake, that's a much worse lens then the 16-35 at the 20mm setting. I'm not sure what reviews have you seen, but if I had a d800 I would never use that on it, unless I wanted to make my camera look smaller, but then the d800 is alrdy pretty big for that.
The Nikon 20-2.8 is somewhat better, but it has other problems I found hard to deal with and it's also inferior to a good copy of the 16-35.

I also have the 16-35 and love it. Sharpness is excellent, and the VR is great. Sharp handheld shots at 16mm and 1 second exposure are possible with steady hands or something to brace yourself against. Beside that extreme, it's nice to not require a tripod for sharp shots at low shutter speeds when you are shooting at base ISO and a small aperture in less-than-great lighting.

msmoto said:
If TTJ says the Tokina 16-28 glass is well made...

I didn't say that IT WAS, but all the Tokina glass I have had is very well made. I'm sure it is as well. I like the idea of VR but for the price and that I have never had VR on a wide angle before, it makes me look at it as a contender. Having a protective/polarizing filter does sway me towards the Nikkor though.

Tokina was founded back in the day by former Nikon lens engineers and they have a very limited line so everything they make, it is done right - and for cheaper. I have the 12-24mm, 17mm, 28-70, 300mm 2.8 now and had an older 80-200 2.8. All of them are/were sharper and built 100x better than any other 3rd party lens other than Zeiss. They only thing I can fault them on is they focus a bit slower and the motors whine a bit - so for video AF they may not be the best.

If the lens is not your primary "Bread & Butter" lens I think Tokina is a great option. I still believe (maybe incorrectly) that your primary lens should be the manufactures or a 3rd party above it (i.e. Zeiss, Schneider) for the best performance.

If TTJ says the Tokina 16-28 glass is well made, I would rely on this. And the DXOmark scores are very slightly better than the 16-35mm f/4VR Nikkor. So, the difference is price, ($400 less), one stop faster, but at the expense of no front threads for a filter and no image stabilization. At the wide angles, image stabilization may not be such an important feature.

Now, if Tokina will come out with a 24mm f/1.4....FX lens...mmmm...

I'm going to watch this thread as well. I love my Tokina glass I have and will put it up against the Nikkors any day. I actually think they are better well made as well.

I was thinking I also heard they were coming out with a 17-35 F2.8 or F4 as well. Everything I have seen the Tokina 16-28 basically performs a bit better in distortion in the super wide range than the Nikkor 16-35mm f/4.0 VR an a bit sharper (hardly noticeable though) but not quite as good as the 14-24 in distortion control.

All the tests I have seen, once all of the above lenses hit 18-20mm range, distortion performance is the same. Sharpness seems to be the same as well.

Right now I have a Tokina 17mm 3.5 ATX-Pro that had been collecting dust but now is living on my D800. Built like a tank, super sharp and super wide. Very little distortion. I didn't know how that one would work with 36mps but it does it better than any consumer Nikkors I have put on it - much much better. Ebay'd that sucker for $125! One of the best buys I have ever done.

Voigtlander lenses always interest me, but when you can get AF for $100 more, I just think going that route makes more since. The few things I have seen on it is that they perform the same as the 20mm.

The other alternative is the 17-35 f/2.8. If you can get a good deal on one, it is definitely worth considering... Solid pro quality with filter threads. Sharp, although allegedly not as sharp as the 14-24 or a good copy of the 16-35.

OK, OK, I have the 20mm f/2.8, and I just do not use it much anymore. I think it is sharp, but it must be about 5-10 years old. The 16-35mm f/4.0 VR is one of my favorites. Distortion is taken care of in LR 4.1 if I so desire. The other wide zoom is the 14-24mm f/2.8 at $2000 USD. Or for the same price the 24mm f/1.4 or f/3.5PC.

If one were to look at a 28mm f/1.8G, the latest prime from Nikon...this may be a great lens. And at about $700. However, the DXOmark scores for the Tokina look very good and the most likely difference may be in the build quality. As you noted the Tokina does not have a filter thread, but for $750 vs. $1150 for the Nikkor....

I will say this....at the ocean, I put my D4 with the 16-35mm into an Ewe Marine Housing, and the lens fits into a special ring which requires a thread on the front. So, if you have that in mind... and, all my lenses have a front filter to protect the element.

In conclusion, I love the 16-35mm lens. I use it for a walk-around. But I also am not up tight about distortion...my 10.5mm modified fisheye suggest this.. I think if used properly one gets excellent results from the 16mm end. If one points it up or down, sticks heads on the edge, or expects all the lines in a room to be straight when shot head on....

Unfortunately I do not have a D800, so my stuff is shot on a D4

Here is 20mm at f/4.0

3000px size http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/7699924890/sizes/o/in/photostream/

and one at 16mm, a panned shot with the car moving about 15 mph.

3000px size http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/7575448010/sizes/o/in/photostream/

If you go to my Flickr photostream, you will find some of folks on a beach...16mm not posted here because I want to live some more... but you can see the distortion is not so bad...

Hope this helps...

ask msmoto :)

i'm in a similiar dilemna, but i think i'm gonna get the 35 1.4g personally before i go any wider ( have the 28mm 2.8D*cheap i know* and its wide enough for now...)

i have heard that the variation of 'sharpness' on the 16-35 is very high... so kind of a mixed jump.
personally, i wouldn't get any of the older af-d wide angle lenses unless you intend to replace them, my experience with them on the d800 is only 'okay'.

I'm in need of a very good UWA lens for my D800. Coming from Canon's 17-40L, anything would be an upgrade for me. I know the Tokina 16-28 gets positive reviews for its sharpness. And the Voigtlander 20mm/3.5 also gets great reviews (and accepts filters). Or I could get the Nikon 20/2.8 -- which I hear mixed results on newer DSLR bodies...
As it goes, the Toke is $750 new with current rebate and Voigtlander is around 450-550 used or new. Combined, possibly very close to price of 16-35mm.

I favor the 16-35 for it's VR, range, and supposed IQ. I can only wonder how bad distortion is at 17-20mm, since so much is made about it's terrible distortion @ 16mm. Does anyone have experience with any of these UWA lenses? Have you used them on the D800? I appreciate any feedback. Thanks