where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
I have been investing in FX lenses and I'm going to upgrade to a FX body soon. I do need a replacement for my wide angle DX lens. Which lens of these two is better? Should I take the 16-35 f/4G ED VR or 17-35 f2.8D IF-ED. Is the VR worth the loss of a stop? How about sharpness and everyday use?
I looked at the 12-24, but I'm also experimenting with filters so that is not the best option for me at the moment.
I would welcome your ideas.
What are you using this lens for if you are using the wide as a landscape or cityscape lens get the Nikon 16-35mm its much much sharper then the 17-35mm 2.8. Now if you need that 2.8 for something then you might want to consider it but it also cost more then the 16-35mm. VR works nicely i say get the 16-35mm if you can find a copy anywhere.
I have the 16-35 f/4G ED VR on a D700
Provide the subject is not moving too much, the VR will compensate for the lost stop and more
At 16mm and f4 it's a bit soft at the edges, but if you are doing a wide shot of the bride and groom, in a dark church, that does not matter too much . If you go outside shooting landscapes, there is normally enough light to stop down to f 8, when it is razor sharp, across the whole image
so unless you shoot sport and need the highest shutter speed possible, the 16 -35 should be fine
If you do need all the light you can get, and want a shallow DOF, then forget zooms and get the 24mm f1.4
I just got the 16-35 f/4 VR and I have the 24mm f/1.4 for my D7000. They each definitely fill separate roles.
f/1.4 for freezing motion in low light, shallow DOF and creamy bokeh, and incredible sharpness at wider apertures than the 16-35.
16-35mm VR for more versatility, and for shooting sharp, camera shake-free landscapes and the like when stopping down the lens and applying a circular polarizer starts bringing the shutter speed way down. Also, for handholding at night. With some luck I've taken 1 second exposures at 16mm and 0.5 second exposures at 35mm!
Both great lenses... 17-35 f/2.8 is good too for what it is, but I would never get that lens due to its soft corners and me usually being in situations where I want sharpness everywhere.
I had the 17-35mm 2.8 and it was pretty good, but if it was me I would get the 16-35mm 4. It is a much better lens all around. The only thing the 17-35 has on it is 2.8 vs 4 and that isn't much for everything else the 16-35 does better.
What some of you guys don't consider is about using the older ED lenses for video.
On the D4 and D800 (and maybe D7000), you cannot change aperture IF SAVING TO MEMORY CARD. What this means, in laymen terms, is that unless you are using the hdmi out and saving externally, control over aperture is not possible with G lenses.
For the ED lenses, you would be able to stop down or open up aperture while recording to memory cards (internal storage). This would be a reason for me to choose the 50mm and 85mm AF-D versions over their newer counterparts.
However, I would never go with the more expensive 17-35 over the 16-35VR. Given the same price, I would go with the 28/1.4 AF-D over the 24/1.4
I prefer the 17-35mm. The Vr does not make up for the lost stop on anything that moves, the 16-35mm is larger and feels heavier, and the 16-35mm isn't sharper wide open (it is sharper at f/8 tho). In addition f/4 lenses produce a stop less (you don't say?) which translates as your viewfinder being a stop darker and when you are shooting in very dark light situations it will come back to bite you. In addition that aperture ring lets you use it on film cameras...
I've extensively used both and prefer the 17-35mm over the 2 (I own one too). I will admit I use my 14-24mm much more than my 17-35mm...
"Feels" heavier is different than "Is" heavier... The D7000 feels heavier than the 60D... But it isn't. Probably because the weight is spread farther outward from the body...
I bought a used 17-35 and haven't regretted it. Admittedly never tried the 16-35, but from what I've seen and tests I've read (see: photozone . de) it produces massive distortions on FX. I don't shoot digital FX yet, but I do shoot film with my F100, where distortions are not that easily corrected unless you scan the negatives. Plus, it's built like a tank.
I found it while I was out looking for a Leicameter for my M3. Must have been funny for the sales guy, I bitched around and said I'd rather wait half an hour for the more knowledgeable guy to come back and properly show me the 80€ used Leicameter, but when I spotted the 17-35, it was a 5 minutes decision.
kenadams said:
Admittedly never tried the 16-35, but from what I've seen and tests I've read (see: photozone . de) it produces massive distortions on FX.
It does indeed but if you shoot digital and use Lightroom 3 or 4 this not a problem
Lightroom can be set to auto correct on import
I've had the same question about these two wide angle lenses. Which should I get? I have looked at sample pictures and they both take great photo's. Even after all my research on these two lenses, and after ordering a 17-35 from BH (it's on the way), I am still on the fence and may return it. I choose the 17-35 since I am planning on using the lens for sports/action pics and wanted the f/2.8. I also like the sturdier build quality of metal lenses.
However, the 16-35 and the VR, which I didn't think was all that important to me, appears to be a feature that I would like after seeing the hand-held pictures taken at night with 1/2 to 1 second exposures, and I love shooting at night. From all the reviews and comments this lens appears to be the sharper of the two.
I was trying to avoid the 14-24, mainly because of it's lack of filter options, but I'm thinking this was the lens I should have ordered, especially since I have a 24-70, and I could always add the 16-35 to my kit later on if need be.
Any constructive criticism/advice would be greatly appreciated from anyone who has experience with these lenses.
Thank You
DXO as well as Ken Rockwell says the 16-35mm f4 is a tad sharper (and cheaper). Two very good reasons for me to go with the 16-35mm f4 VR for my new D800.
Unless you shoot moving people/sports in very low light situation the f4 VR should be the better choice.
As for VR or not i would have to say that it probably doesn't make much sense for wide angle lenses. At 16 to 35mm the required shutter speed to correct for handshake is so low that you run into "motion blur" well before you run into "shaking hands" problems ... and for landscape/static photography it isn't of much use either because you mostly use a tripod in those situations anyway (if you don't then you're doing it wrong and the whole discussion is inappurtenant).
Toyed with the decision myself last year until I ran across a used 17-35 for about the same price as the 16-35, albeit with one very small cosmetic ding (and even that wasn't too bad). I've heard lots of negatives about the 16-35's distortion from 16 to 20, but have never used it myself. VR vs. the extra stop is probably roughly equal, although having the additional DOF offered by the extra stop can be useful at times. I do use it for landscapes a lot so it spends a lot of time on a tripod. And yes, it's built like a tank.
Summery
every one, including me, who owns a 16 -35 f 4 is happy with there choice
every one with 17 -35 f 2.8 also seems happy
both seem very good lenes
Arjen, do let know what you get and why
Hi, does anyone else have anything to add on this thread? It is my 'big dilemma' at the moment, until I strike oil in the back garden!
dilemma 2 - do I just say what the hell and get a 24-70, and make do for a while, or make do with my 50, and 35 primes?
I picked up a 24-70 as well used. A little more versatile in my mind than the 17-35 and probably sharper. They do overlap but they're also very different.
No question the 24-70mm f/2.8 is a lens everyone wants. But, no real wide angle, so you will have to get a Zeiss, 15mm for the very wide... And now that I have spent your $5,000... any other desire for assistance? The two lenses in the thread title are both very good and the choice is purely about one's needs and if one wants a filter on the front. But, if one's idea is to use primes, as in 50mm, 35mm, the consideration for the Nikkor 24mm f/1.4, or one of the Zeiss wide primes (21, 25, 28mm) might be in the choice column.
Or, if architectural is your desire...I love my 24mm f/3.5 PC Nikkor.
MsMoto, I'm actually very much looking forward to seeing any test reviews of the new Samyang 24mm PC, as I'm interested in a tilt/shift myself. The Nikkor is a bit on the steep side price wise for an experiment and a lens I'm probably not going to use a whole lot...
DxO Mark along with user reviews at B&H website product pages.
Compare specs at photozone dot de also.
Funduro has a good point. While DXOmark is so far behind in their reviews, the B & H reviews can be helpful.. Mainly if several folks complain about the same thing, then I suspect it is a real problem. Ironically, I just ordered a Zeiss Distagon T 28mm f/2, as on B & H it had six reviews, all five stars... not one person had anything bad to say... I will be doing a little report on this once I have played with it awhile.
On the other hand, the 24mm PC Nikkor has a few glitches, mainly in the controls of tilt, shift, so if one of the other manufacturers comes through with a comparable lens for half the price... lots of fun.
You must log in to post.
