New 16-35 or almost new 17-35 Nikkor?

<p>I plan to buy a wideangle zoom for my D700. I found an almost new 17-35/2.8 Nikkor for the price of new 16-35/4 VR Nikkor.<br>

Which one should I buy?</p>

<p>The 17-35mm f/2.8 should be widely available used for the price of the 16-35mm. "Almost New" might be worth a little more, I suppose. You are trading f/2.8 and a highly-regarded lens in the 17-35mm for the f/4, VR, and as yet unknown performance of the 16-35mm. I would suppose the new lens to be on par with the old version (or probably better), but haven't read any reviews or used one myself yet. I would rather have f/2.8 than VR for a lens that wide, but it really depends on what and how you shoot.<br>

Of course, the 16-35mm is brand new and comes with a warranty. My experience with Nikon repair is that everything starts at $200 and goes up from there.</p>

<p>If its price neutral, what do you value more - max aperture or VR? Also the 17-35 is heavier I believe so that could play in your decision. I don't think 1 deg wider is a big deal.</p>

<p>For me I'd go w/ 2.8 over VR at the same price.</p>

<p>I would wait and see. I am going to guess the new 16-35 f4 will outperform the older 17-35 2.8.</p>

<p>I suspect there will be a f2.8 pro version of the 16-35 after the new f4... obviously I don`t know when and if with VR or not. Anyway, I`m almost decided to buy the f4. If the very first reviews are not <em>so bad</em>, I`ll buy it.</p>

<p>This weekend I carried with the 24-70 and 70-200; after several hours shooting with the 70-200, VR on, I switched to the 24-70... and missed the VR feature.</p>

<p>VR vs f2.8? Theoretically, the VR will let you to shoot hand held with an advantage of three stops over the f2.8 version... the f2.8 has one stop advantage over the f4 for subjects in motion.</p>

<p>If you shoot sports or subjects in motion, the f2.8. If you like to shoot under low light conditions to static subjects, the f4VR. Hope not to miss something...</p>

<p>We can't rule out the possibility that the new lens is optically better, especially when stepped down. After all the 17-35 wasn't the most distortion free WA lens out there. Also, the 17-35 has an aperture ring; in certain situations, moisture and dust could get inside through it due to the lack of sealing.</p>

<p>We should wait for tests/reviews on the new lens before you decide. (if you could)</p>

<p>On a WA zoom with a D700, VR makes up for f/4 with something left over to compensate for poor shooting technique, and the smaller aperture works at cross-purposes to fast AF. Neither is worth 1mm in focal length to me. The nano coating would be nice, but it ain't enough to get me to buy one. Neither is being 2.3 oz lighter. Effectively, what Nikon did was update their 18-35 f/3.5-4.5D lens. IMO they picked the wrong one to update.</p>

<p>I'd get the used 17-35/2.8. If you like it, you're done. If you don't, you can always sell it and get the 16-35/4 and live with the quirks of VR (like the viewing frame shifting when you release the shutter).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>BTW, the new 16-35mm is in stock in B&H ...</p>

<p>http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/675838-USA/Nikon_2182_AF_S_Nikkor_16_35mm_f_4G.html</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I think it depends on what you are going to be shooting; that will drive your choice. I don't see VR as a big advantage. I'd rather take the brighter view finder that a 2.8 lens provides. Stopped down to F8, I'd bet that both lenses are going to be comparable. At F4 the 17-35MM will almost certainly be sharper. If you ever going to use a film camera like the F3 or F4, the aperture ring will be important to you.<br>

As some one said, you probably can't go wrong with the 17-35MM, as you could easily sell it in the used market.</p>

<p>Anthony</p>

 

<p>It is best to wait another couple of weeks so that there are reliable reviews on the new 16-35mm/f4 AF-S VR before making this decision. In particular, it is important to see how that lens performs on the D3X. While you might not have a 24MP DSLR right now, within the lifetime of these new lenses, a 20MP or perhaps 30MP DSLR should be fairly common.</p>

<p>I can't help but think that the new 16-35 will be significantly better than the older 17 in every way but f/stop. That seems to be the track record with Nikon's new pro lenses. It might be best to wait for some reviews however.</p>

<p>An F/4 lens is also significantly easier to correct than an F/2.8 lens. And, the presence of 2 ASPH and ED elements should wipe out any tertiary or other secondary aberrations.</p>

 

<p>Get the f/2.8 if you want a lens that's slightly soft, more so at the sides of the image, when shot wide open. Perfect, even sharpness is not always desirable. Also, the 17-35 has an aperture ring...important to some folks. <strong>If</strong>, however, in the new lens Nikon has gotten rid of the pronounced barrel distortion of the 17-35 at 17, then the new lens might be the more satisfying choice. Depends on what you shoot.<br>

"I'd get the used 17-35/2.8. If you like it, you're done. If you don't, you can always sell it and get the 16-35/4 and live with the quirks of VR (like the viewing frame shifting when you release the shutter)."<br>

This is practical advice. Keep it for six months; If you sell it, It'll be like getting a low-cost or free rental for the period.</p>

 

 

 

 

 

 

<p>There seems to be some tremendous distortion with the 16-35 at 16mm, based on images that I've just recently seen.</p>

<p>Here is a link to the first impressions about the 16-35 Nikkor:<br>

<a href="http://www.fotografie.fr/fotoforum/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=643#p2239">http://www.fotografie.fr/fotoforum/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=643#p2239</a></p>

<p>Wow, the distortion at 16mm looks pretty severe. I wonder how it improves at 18, 20, 24mm?</p>