16-35mm, 20mm question

Dear all,

It's been a couple years since I was active on this forum, I guess work sort of took over my life.

I apologize in advance for a couple things, I know it's annoying to have inactive people pop in and ask "which lens should I buy." I did do a search but I kept getting "no results found" which surprises me, so evidently I'm doing something wrong.

 

Anyway, here goes.

I have a D700 and most of the time I use my 24-85 lens. (I feel slightly ashamed that my favorite lens is a mid-range zoom, but there you have it!) It stays on the camera all the time. I also have two 50s, 70-300, a 105D, and an older 18-35D lens that I used on my F100 when I shot film. It's never been on my D700, I think I just got out of the habit of using it when I still had my D70. I am thinking about selling it and getting something newer that will be better for the D700 and beyond.

 

This summer we are taking a trip to Glacier, and I'm thinking about picking up something new for the trip. I'm debating between the 16-35mm and the 20mm prime. I'm not sure how much difference 20mm would give me in terms of width, but the 16-35 also overlaps a lens I already have, so I'm sort of at an impasse with myself.

(Part of me has always wanted to be one of those shooters that only shoots primes, but they're not as small, compact, or light as they used to be!)

Anyway, any advice regarding image quality of these two lenses and their general usability would be greatly appreciated!

Thank you!

~Julie

I have never visited glaciers my self. I have heard that such places can be dangerous. What I gather from the original post Your gear is set as is. What to take with You is up to You. The trip can be done with D700 (or F100) + 50mm, or D700 + 24-85mm, or D700 + 18-35mm. I would recommend to spend "new gear money" to any gear that brings comfort to daily life in glaciers, may that be inflatable mattress or better carrying equipment or higher quality food.

 

I have tried AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D with dx digital and 135 film bodies. It is nice focal lenght to emphasise greatness of landscape over man made objects. It is little sensitive to back light so it flares easily. This one is easy to purchase and later sell with same price.

Dear all,

It's been a couple years since I was active on this forum, I guess work sort of took over my life.

I apologize in advance for a couple things, I know it's annoying to have inactive people pop in and ask "which lens should I buy." I did do a search but I kept getting "no results found" which surprises me, so evidently I'm doing something wrong.

~Julie

 

At least I don't find "inactive" members popping in to ask questions a problem. A lot of questions have been asked a number of times, but as new equipment and techniques are introduced, the answers also evolve over time. And not everybody has time to participate in discussions here on a regular basis.

 

A 20mm is nice for landscape and architecture, but a zoom that goes even wider will give you more flexibility. Some overlap in zoom ranges is actually a good thing in my opinion, i.e. having both a 16-35 and a 24-85 so that the 24-35mm range overlaps. That means you don't have to switch lenses every single time you cross the 24mm or 35mm boundary. From 24mm to 35mm is a popular range and it would have been very annoying if you have to change lenses frequently across that boundary.

 

Personally, I prefer the latest 18-35mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S (the old version is AF-D, not AF-S), it is smaller, lighter, and cheaper than the 16-35mm/f4 AF-S VR. I don't find VR that useful for a wide-angle and that 16-35mm/f4 is quite big. Additionally, as far as I know the 16-35mm zoom is very poor at 16mm such that it is best to avoid the widest mm or two, and you effectively end up with a 18-35mm anyway. However, if one needs 16mm or VR, the 16-35mm would be the way to go.

The 16-35 4 had vr. It enables me to hand hold to a full second in places where tripods aren't allowed, churches museums. Wide, I am usually shooting f/11 or 13 for dof so a lighter lens is nice. You have a great combination 16-35, fast 50 and a 70-300 again a lighter zoom. It is all I would carry.

I have the 18-35mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S, it is reasonably small and light. I found it to be quite a good compromise with results good enough to drop the 16-35 off my wish list. There are quite a lot of samples in my portfolio -- particularly in Arizona and New Mexico, as well as here in Montana. The lens can be found at quite good prices used from the major on line photo dealers. Best of luck with your decision and trip!

Wow, this is the best forum! Thank you for your quick and informative responses!

 

I must confess I hadn't considered the 18-35, but the price is nicer and I do like lightweight lenses. (I have rented expensive lenses in the past, and willing to rent for occasions which call for spendy glass, and I do love the IQ, but for regular use I'm not inclined to buy something heavy like a 24-70.) The 18-35D that I have is quite lightweight, I just don't think it's up to the job for the D700 or D750 if I end up moving up.

 

More to think about. Thank you all so much!

The old AF-D 18-35 might just be sufficient for use on the D700, in particular for landscape when stopped down to f/8 and beyond. When shooting at faster apertures, the newer AF-S 18-35 is certainly preferred. I own the 16-35/4 VR, and one reason for that choice was the VR feature that I find comes in handy quite often when the tripod isn't with me or or its use not allowed. Unlike Shun, I don't think the lens is poor at focal lengths smaller than 18mm though barrel distortion is quite pronounced. Like many Nikon zooms, the performance of the 16-35 gets worse when zoomed in; for "best" quality I would consider the 16-35 closer to a 16-28 than to a 18-35. I have looked at the only other option with VR, the Tamron 15-30/2.8 VC. While faster and quite possibly optically better than the 16-35, the lens is also substantially larger and heavier (and doesn't take filters easily). I never considered the 14-24; the bulbous front element scared me off.

 

I hope the 20mm you are considering is the newer AF-S 20/1.8G and not the old AF-D 20/2.8. I owned the latter and found the performance unacceptable below f/8 even when used on a DX camera (a 1977 20/4 was sharper wide open than my copy of the 20/2.8 stopped down to f/8). Only you can decide if you need the flexibility of a zoom or rather have the certainly better optical performance of the prime. For me, a single focal length in the 16-35mm range could never replace the versatility of a zoom, I would have to have at least three primes to cover that range (one at either extreme of the range and one somewhere in the middle). In fact, I carry small manual focus lenses for my A7II: 15/4.5, 21/1.8, 40/1.4 to cover approximately the same range a 16-35 does. Plainly obvious that I am not saving space or weight this way. The FOV difference between 16mm and 20mm is vast. Again, only you can decide whether 20mm is wide enough for you or 16-18 too wide.

. Unlike Shun, I don't think the lens is poor at focal lengths smaller than 18mm though barrel distortion is quite pronounced. Like many Nikon zooms, the performance of the 16-35 gets worse when zoomed in; for "best" quality I would consider the 16-35 closer to a 16-28 than to a 18-35. I have looked at the only other option with VR, the Tamron 15-30/2.8 VC. While faster and quite possibly optically better than the 16-35, the lens is also substantially larger and heavier (and doesn't take filters easily). I never considered the 14-24; the bulbous front element scared me off.

 

I hope the 20mm you are considering is the newer AF-S 20/1.8G and not the old AF-D 20/2.8.

 

Thank you for your insight about the 16-35. I think I can rent that lens at my local camera shop, so maybe I'll give that a go before I buy anything.

And YES, I was considering the 20mm AF-S, not the D. I am trying to sort of move away from D lenses as I upgrade my equipment, even though I really like the size and weight of those primes.

After poking around, the newer 18-35 gets pretty good reviews, so it's now definitely under consideration. I wouldn't really consider the 12-24, too expensive and too big, though maybe I'd rent it.

I'm also open to considering non-Nikon brands if there's something worth looking at. I like the idea of the Sigma Art lenses, but every post I read about them seems to mention how heavy they are, soooo, that's probably not for me.

Although I only have the 35mm/f1.4, Sigma Art lenses are in general excellent, but I am not sure why Sigma needs to put so much metal in them. If I am getting a 500mm/f4, sure I would like to have more metal to hold the heavy elements together. But for something like a 20mm, even f1.4, a plastic barrel is perfectly fine. My Sigma 35mm/f1.4 Art is twice as heavy as my Nikon 28mm/f1.8, which has a plastic barrel.

 

Needless to say, the 18-35mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S has a plastic barrel. In my book, plastic is an advantage, not a disadvantage, for small lenses like those.

considering the 20mm AF-S

To me, 20mm is too close to the 24mm you already have.

Sigma Art lenses, but every post I read about them seems to mention how heavy they are,

Not all of them are: the Nikon 35/1.4 is 600g, the Sigma Art 35/1.4 is 665g which the same weight as the Sigma 24/1.4; the Nikon 24/1.4 is 620g. These are admittedly the most favorable comparisons in a like-for-like comparison, for the others, the Art lenses indeed weigh substantially more. For example, the Sigma 50/1.4 Art is 815g, quite significantly more than the Nikon 50/1.4G at 281g. As Shun pointed out, if one includes the f/1.8 Nikon lenses in the comparison, then yes, Sigma Art lenses are heavy.

Glacier is a wonderful park to visit and take photos. I'm not the hiking type, which is required to get close to the remaining glaciers, but every turn of the road presents a new opportunity for a landscape. Wide angle lenses tend to flatten the background, and Glacier is all about "background", the mountains. Wide angle lenses can be used to emphasize the foreground, such as boulders or fields of flowers. You will find a use for anything you bring, but in practice, normal to medium telephoto are most useful.

 

In general, big things doe best with big (e.g., long) lenses. My experience there was with a 1.5x digital Hasselblad, with lenses from 40 mm (35 mm equivalent) to 250 (200 ml equivalent). Most things could be framed nicely with a "normal" lens, which is 60 mm (50 mm equivalent) for this camera. There are no zooms for Hasselblad of that vintage, which I found no handicap. When I carried a Leica for such occasions, a 35, 50 and 90 were just fine. I just returned from a land where glaciers and snow-capped peaks are never out of sight, Iceland. I carried a bunch of primes from 18 mm to 90 mm, but mainly used a 24-70/2.8, 70-200/4 or 16-35/4 in that order, with a Sony A7Rii. for really wide shots, I combine multiple exposures into a stitched panorama.

 

Prime lenses are better than most zoom lenses when shooting into the sun. They may have somewhat better resolution and less distortion

, but zoom lenses are very close. You don't need fast lenses in the wilderness. If you need a 10 second exposure, there's nobody around to object to a tripod.

 

There are grizzly bears in Glacier, which can surprise you at any time, especially in berry season (June-July). The rangers recommend bear spray, which you can buy locally (but not carry on a plane). If you can carry a firearm legally in Montana, you can carry it in the park (not the Canadian side). Some trails are slippery and steep, and guard rails are perfunctory or absent altogether. Never go out on ice without a guide and proper gear. There are usually crevasses, which are covered in snow. People have disappeared without a trace. Ice caves can collapse without warning, and never forget, the stuff is slippery (i.e., use crampons, ice axes and ropes).

 

Hasselblad CFV16 + CF60

To me, 20mm is too close to the 24mm you already have.

There's a big difference between a super wide 20 and very wide 24, at least when you can't move closer or further away. Would I carry two primes instead of a 16-35 zoom? Probably not if the zoom were decent.

 

I have a 16-35 zoom, but bought a prime Batis 18/2.8 primarily for starry photos, auroras, etc., for its extrene sharpness and low level of astigmatism, rather than a Loxia 21/2.8. This is the only time I used it in the field so far. It was hard to keep my shoes out of the photo. Even so, I was very close to the edge in order to capture the width of the lake, impossible with a 20-21 lens in one shot.

 

Kerith Crater, IC Sony A7Rii + Batis 18/2.8 (I used ...th instead of the Icelansk "eth" character, which eludes me for the moment.)

 

Edited June 4, 2017 by Ed_Ingold

Until this week I shot with a d700, now a d810. I travel solo by motorcycle. The 16-35 f4 is maybe my favorite lens. It is a very useful focal range esp for landscapes. I rode through Glacier last year and iirc I used my 24-70 most of the time, not the 16-35. But elsewhere along the trip my 16-35 was my go to lens

I also have a Nikkor 20 2.8 prime, an old manual focus. When I got it years ago I used it a lot, now hardly at all. Love the 16-35.

I've been to Glacier NP four or five times, including last summer. Honestly, unless you are using a tripod for almost every shot, you are better off with a high quality zoom. They are much more versatile and quicker to use. If you are going by yourself it doesn't matter much if you take a lot of time setting up a shot, but if going with someone else they will appreciate the decreased time it takes to use a zoom.

 

 

Kent in SD

 

20mm and wider is a lot more expansive, and more challenging to use well, than 24mm.

 

If you decide to go ultrawide, then mine's another vote for a zoom, either the 16-35 or cheaper 18-35. I must admit I've used neither since I have the 14-24mm f/2.8, but I also have (much) smaller and lighter primes in that range that hardly see any use these days. The versatility and quality of the 14-24 makes 'em pretty redundant, despite the zoom's weight and size.

 

For landscape use in new territory the more focal length range you can cover the better IME. And the fewer lenses you need to cover that range the better as well. As long as image quality doesn't suffer of course.

 

If you eventually upgrade to a D750, you might want to consider a Tamron SP VC 24-70mm f/2.8 for your go to lens as well. It's smaller cheaper and slightly lighter than the Nikon equivalent, with image quality well up to the same standard.

 

You may find that a lens that played well on the old D700 doesn't quite cut the mustard on a higher res D750. The above Tamron lives on my D800 and more than delivers the goods.

There's a big difference between a super wide 20 and very wide 24, at least when you can't move closer or further away.

Well, to get the same FOV, you need to step back by a factor of 1.2 when using the 24 instead of the 20mm lens. Sure that can make a difference if you can't back up or move closer; to get that 120 ft high subject into the frame with a 24mm you need to be 120 ft away but only 100 ft when using a 20mm. Since a change of distance is involved in this comparison, perspective will change too - the more important factor IMHO (and I understand Rodeo_Joe's remark above to be in that same context) . With subjects at infinity, that factor of 1.2 (in each dimension) can make a difference too, but quite often becomes rather irrelevant (especially if one shoots from the same position with either).

 

I am just going by what has been in many photography books over the years: one shouldn't carry every one of the classical focal lengths, but every second. So in the sequence 18, 20, 24, 28, 35, 50, 85, 105, 135, 200 one would pick an 18mm if one already had a 24mm. But everybody needs to decide on their own whether or not 20 and 24 (or any other combination) are worth covering simultaneously.

 

I did find that the gap between 35 and 70 sometimes needs covering with a 50. I have not missed the 28 to cover between the 24 and 35. I have not missed the 24 to fill a gap between the 21 and 28mm. And I have not even found a need to get anything in between a 15 and a 21mm focal length.

Edited June 4, 2017 by Dieter Schaefer

I bought my 20mm f/2.8 AF-D demo for $256 with full 5 year warranty. It's OK for the price. After about 4 years of use it had stuck diaphram and Nikon fixed it for free.

If you are indeed interested in the 16-35mm/f4 AF-S VR, Nikon USA has just started a $100 rebate. This lens is $999.95 after rebate, which is available from the major mail-order stores:

AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR from Nikon

Edited June 4, 2017 by ShunCheung

Thank you, Shun!

After going through my camera bag(s), and realizing how many D lenses I still have, I've decided to upgrade those lenses, and replace my 18-35D with the current AF-s version instead of spending more on the 16-35.

I took the 50 1.4D lens out yesterday, and it's so sharp, but I really dislike that bokeh. Oddly I never minded it on film, it looked right, but on digital it seems so "jittery" to me.

And speaking of film, it's probably time to be honest with myself and sell my F100 if I'm getting rid of the D lenses, I held onto them for the F100, but alas.

Thank you all for the advice, I never would have thought about the current 18-35 AF-S if not for this thread, so thank you!

Good luck! I find it to be a fun lens, usually on one camera body with 24-120 on the other when I travel.

I use both. I prefer the 20mm as it has much less edge distortion than the 16-35, which is important to me as a Real Estate Photographer. However, the distortion can be easily corrected in Lightroom. I feel (and I use the word feel because it may be my imagination) that the 20mm is a bit sharper out of the camera. I like the 20mm for my Milky Way shots since the f1.8 allows me to leave the shutter open longer. I originally had the 18-35 but the distortion was much worse and not always correctable. However, that was, again using it for my real estate work. For landscapes the 18-35 may be fine since the edge distortion isn't as critical.

For landscape photography, I think a good wide angle zoom is almost indispensable. I have the 16-35 myself, which is excellent IMO. Very sharp in the 16-324 range, at its worse as it nears 35mm, but still certainly useable. I've considered adding the 20mm 1.8g as well for night photography, but have a feeling I wouldn't use it enough to justify the $800 price tag.

I had the 18-35mm AFD and honestly, the newer version is a big upgrade. I'm using a Nikon 20mm f1.8g as my widest lens, and the Nikon 24mm PC-E when I want something even wider.

 

 

Kent in SD

The last time I was in Glacier, i used my 24mm Nikon prime lens a lot on my film camera. With my D810, I use the Nikon 20mm f1.8 and my zoom is the 24-85mm which I find to be a great travel lens that will work well in Glacier. I am not that familiar with the wide zoom you asked about. I will add this. Whatever you decide to get and take with you, make sure it works well with a polarizer filter, preferably a thin mount version to avoid any vignetting. I think you will need the polarizer to reduce glare from water and foilage. If you have a 300mm f4, take it too. Same advice for a 70-200mm.