Jump to content

Wide lens comparison? : 16-35/4G vs 17-35/2.8D


bmm

Recommended Posts

<p>Just a quick post wondering if anyone yet has done an optical comparison of the new 16-35/4 against the AF-D 17-35/2.8?</p>

<p>They seem to be the obvious 'contenders' for wide FX zooms, short of the 'ultra-wide' 14-24/2.8</p>

<p>By my reckoning the newer lens costs you a stop of light and a bit of extra size (length of lens), but gains you an extra mm at the wide end, a little bit of weight, VR, and about $400 (based on B&H prices).</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Can't answer your question, but I will say that unless the 16-35 turns out to optically out-perform the 17-35 by a good margin I fail to understand what kind of user it's aimed at. When you go from f2.8 to f4, you expect to really slim down both the size/weight as well as the cost, none of which seems to have occurred here. If I recall, the 18-35 was much cheaper than the 17-35, which made it a decent alternative.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><em>The not to be quoted here guy says that the 16-35mm 4.0 lens is even slightly sharper than the 14-24mm. If I was a Nikon user I would probably get one.</em></p>

<p>Why quote a person who writes articles, intentionally embedding them with misleading and incorrect claims to provoke readers and lead the unwary astray? It seems that the only reason to do so is that you also want to mislead people. Why? This is a site for learning about photography and most people here make an honest effort.</p>

<p>My testing suggests that the 14-24 is considerably sharper than the 16-35 at the widest focal lengths (also, lower distortion) and the 24-70 is better than the 16-35 in the 24-35mm range. The 16-35 a bit soft at the left and right edges of the frame, which makes me uncomfortable (though it is good in the central square of the FX frame, if you want to crop the images to 1:1 aspect ration it should be fine). My tests have been in the distance range of 2-4 meters to subject. I have read about other tests at long distances which suggest that the performance of the 16-35 is better there than at close distances, however I do not expect to use such a lens at long distances so for me the infinity performance is irrelevant. While I wasn't that happy with what I saw from the 16-35, if having this particular zoom range and/or filter support is important to your applications, then I'm sure it's possible to make it work satisfactorily. Personally I got weary of wide angles lenses that have edge issues by trying various older wide angle lenses on digital, and do not wish to buy a new, expensive lens with this problem.</p>

<p>I have no experience with the 17-35 since it's no longer available here.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have only played around with the 16-35mm/f4 AF-S VR at a camera store, and photozone.de has some full-size test images. At 16mm, distortion is very serious and edge sharpness is poor in the test samples. In a private conversation, Bjorn Rorslett has pretty much confirmed those findings. Apparently the 16-35 gets much better once you avoid the widest mm or two.</p>

<p>I have the 14-24mm/f2.8 AF-S and 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S. Someone like Bjorn who has thoroughly tested all three lenses is in the best position to comment on all three.</p>

<P>

P.S. When 24MP, 30MP FX bodies become more popular a year or two down the road, those edge/corner performance issues will only get more serious.

</P>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>You must be looking at the grey-market prices. The price difference at B&H in the US models is about $650, which is not to be sneezed at.<br>

The utility of this range of zoom lens to me is mostly in landscape use where I'm stopped down anyway. For that reason, and because it's a range I used relatively infrequently, I got a 16-35. The 24-70 is still my most-used landscape lens by far, but it's nice to be able to go wider when needed. Not as wide as 16, really. On FX, a composition at that wide a FOV is too challenging for me!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>thanks for your detailed report, ilkka, but i'm not sure how comparing the 14-24 and 16-35 helps someone trying to choose between the 16-35 and 17-35. also, bjorn has not officially reviewed the 16-35.</p>

<p>as for who the 16-35 is for, i'd say people who like to shoot landscapes with ND grads, take handheld low-light pics,or dont have $1700-1800 for the 17-35 or 14-24. the price probably should have been closer to $800-900.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Another issue I had with the 16-35, is about mechanical construction. Despite of being a gold ringed lens and supposedly made in magnesium and high quality plastics (which I don`t doubt), it has a great look but a consumer type plastic feel at hand. The zooming ring could be simply ok, but the focus ring recall me my <em>cheapest</em> lenses. Nothing to do with the f2.8 line, where manual focusing is a pleasure. <br /> Otherwise, optically I think it`d be fine for my needs.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have had the 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S since 2001. I like its performance a lot until I tried it on a D3X last year. Eventually when high-pixel FX bodies starts becoming popular, it will challenge a lot of lenses. It looks like the gray version is $300+ cheaper at B&H.</p>

<p>The main issue with the 17-35 is the AF motor squeel problem when the lens gets older. That topic has been discussed quite a few times.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Eventually when high-pixel FX bodies starts becoming popular, it will challenge a lot of lenses</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree, and am surprised that this even seems to apply to the newest glass being released as I would have thought that Nikon would know now what the 'sensor of 2015' was going to be in broad terms, even if it is still a few years of R&D and productionisation off being ready for release.</p>

<p>How do you think the 17-35 performs on D3 / D700 though? And do you think a jump to say 16MP (assuming this kind of resolution in a 'D800') will seriously stretch it?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>There must be a f2.8 AFS version of this lens in the Nikon line. Of course I don`t know when it`ll be released, and given the usual awaiting time it could be so far... looks like they give a lot of time to clear every release up to the limit (even pushing exasperated users). Now the offer is wide with that 24, 35, 14-24, 16-35 and even 24-120 still on the shelves, but it`s time now for the 17-35 update. Maybe if you can wait... <br /> Certainly it could take a long time. That lens could arrive together with the D700 update, or even with the D4. Who knows.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><a href="http://diglloyd.com/dap/index.html#TOC">Diglloyd’s Advanced Photography</a> (a subscription web site) has a systematic comparison of all the Nikon wide angle zooms - from the 14-24 to the old 18-35. His review suggests that the new 16-35 is generally a sharper lens than either of the old lenses (17-35 or 18-35) at most focal lengths and apertures. <br>

I have the old 18-35 and the new 16-35. Apart from the obvious distortion in the 16-18 range, the 16-35 produces very good images. With the introduction of the lens correction modules in Adobe LR3 and CS5, the distortion at the 16 to 18 range is much less a problem, though I generally try to stay in the 20 to 30 mm range, where the images are sharpest and distortion is well controlled (see the Photozone review).<br>

Surprisingly, the VR is also nice to have. When you are taking a landscape at twilight, it is very nice to be able to handhold relatively long exposures (e.g., 1/4 or 1/2 sec) and get sharp images without a tripod.<br>

The biggest drawback of the 16-35 is that it is a big lens - though not as big as the 14-24 - but I still carry it or have it on my D700 almost all the time.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>DPReview has also reviewed the 16-35mm/f4 AF-S VR: <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_16-35_2p8_vr_n15/">http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_16-35_2p8_vr_n15/</a><br>

Their findings are quite consistent with what we have discussed above.</p>

<p>I am quite happy with the 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S on the D3 and D700, but after the introduction of the D3100 (14MP) and D7000 (16MP), it should be clear that 12MP is out of fashion by now, especially on FX. In hindsight, the D3S is more like a special case, optimized for low-light performance. I kind of dobut that Nikon will introduce any more 12MP DSLR.</p>

<p>With the trios of 14-24mm/f2.8, 17-35mm/f2.8 and 16-35mm/f4 VR, I wonder whether Nikon will add any more wide zoom in the near future. While the 16-35 still seems to be a fine lens, I had expected more from it, especially since it only opens to f4.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Shun and others - am I right though in expecting that both the 16-35 and 17-35 will out-perform the older and not-so-stellar AF-D primes at focal lengths like 20mm or 24mm? (I know that the 14-24 easily does but it is too wide/specialised for my taste).</p>

<p>My specific reason for asking this is that if I were to go either way, the wide zoom would be replacing my 24/2.8 AF-D prime.</p>

<p>PS: I wish photozone tested the 17-35/2.8 on FX... its review on DX seems to be good, but its hard to make direct comparison to its less-good findings on 16-35 due to the latter having been tested on the far more demanding FX format.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Bernard, the 20mm/f2.8 AF-D and 24mm/f2.8 AF-D are no longer very good lenses in today's standards. Topping them does not mean anything any more. Back in 2001 I replaced my 20mm/f2.8 AF (pre D but same optics) with the 17-35mm/f2.8, so I no longer have the 20mm for a direct comparison. I still have the 24mm/f2.8 AF-D and it is a very mediocre lens today.</p>

<p>I can recommend the 17-35. For a while I thought about getting the 16-35; if it were really great from 16mm, I might have gotten it, but as the way it is, the useable range is more like 18-35mm. Since I also have the 14-24, I really don't need a third wide zoom.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

<p>I'm trying to decide between Nikon's three wide zooms at the moment. I favour a different lens everyday. I suppose that's because they all have their pros and cons.<br>

Realistically though, I'll probably end up buying the 16-35 VR as I want to use it mostly for landscape and handheld low light shots. The fact that it's f/4 does worry me a little but I haven't used a lens with VR before, although have read that it does match the low light ability of an f/2.8 lens. The other niggling thing about this lens is the amount of distortion at 16-17mm that people keep reporting.<br>

There's a few hundred to be saved buying the 16-35 over the other two and a specialised filter holder isn't necessary as is with the 14-24.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...