Nkon Wide Angle Lens

[dbcooper]

<p>I have those three lenses. What's on my D700 the majority of the time is the 17-35. I do use the other two, but only occasionally.</p>

<ul>

<li>The 16mm fisheye's images can be converted to rectilinear in post, but IQ isn't great that way, edge distortion is problematic (especially if people are in the shot, like indoors), and it can't use filters. As a matter of fact, I'm unimpressed with it as a fisheye. Sometimes I shoot QTVR panos, and I wish the IQ, flare resistance, and CA were better. </li>

<li>The 14-24 has stunning IQ and is very w i d e, but I find the zoom range limiting for regular use. It can't use screw-on filters (not all of my shots have open sky, and I like using a polarizer to limit glare). Lee is finally making a filter holder and rectangular filters (ND and ND grads) for that lens. The filters will undoubtedly be pricey, and given Lee's history, may be hard to get for some time. The 150mm holder is expensive ($367.60 at B&H) and bulky...definitely not for everyone. I've had this lens for over a year. When I need it, it's the shizzle.</li>

<li>IMO, Nikon badly missed the mark with the 16-35/4 'update' to the 17-35. The short end barrel distortion is awful, and f/4 doesn't help one single bit with low light, subject motion, narrowing the DoF, or brightening the viewfinder. But it's got VR (yawn). IMO, it's crippled, but it's cheaper than the 17-35 if you have to have a brand new lens.</li>

</ul>

<p>For best utility with great IQ, I'd recommend the 17-35. I got myself a nice used one last spring when everyone was dumping theirs to order a new 16-35. :)</p>

[photo5]

<p>I'd love the Nikon 17-35mm, I've wanted one since they were introduced. When I bought a D700 in November, 2008, I bought a second hand Tamron 17-35mm f2.8-4 SP Aspherical zoom lens in mint condition on ebay for $150 from a local seller. I compared it against my Nikon 28mm and 35mm AI and AIS prime lenses and really couldn't tell the difference. There is a slight bit of vignetting at 17mm that is noticeable in the corners, but other than that, it's a stellar lens. I'm too satisfied with it to upgrade to the Nikon for $800+ more used. But someday I will have the funds and will upgrade. For now the Tamron does the job for me.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>Nikon badly missed the mark with the 16-35/4 'update' to the 17-35</em></p>

<p>According to Nikon, the 16-35 isn't meant to be an update to the 17-35, but a new type/class of lens; this is stated in the press literature of the 16-35. The 14-24 and 24-70 have replaced the 17-35 in some countries but the latter is still available in others.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Yes, I`m convinced that sooner or later there will be a "G" version of the 17-35/2.8. (According to what I think is their policy, it will happen when the saturation of the market were completed with the current choices... ).</p>

[acarodp]

<p>The OP might be interested in purchasing a subscription to diglloyd.com DAP, which presents a very extensive and, I would say, careful comparison of the current choices of Nikon FF ultra-wide, including 14-24, 17-35 and 16-35. I have used the 14-24 and own the 16-35, but I have never used the 17-35. I don't know to which extent the findings there might be due to sample variation in the 17-35 (the author tried two with same results, he says), but it appears to dramatically lack contrast and sharpness below f5.6 at most focal lengths, and is systematically behind the other two. I am not a sharpness fanatic by any means, but on the basis of what I see there, I would not consider the 17-35 a competitor for either the 14-24 or the 16-35 f4. I guess that 10 years in UWA design and manufacturing have not passed in vain.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>IMO, Nikon badly missed the mark with the 16-35/4 'update' to the 17-35. The short end barrel distortion is awful, and f/4 doesn't help one single bit with low light, subject motion, narrowing the DoF, or brightening the viewfinder. But it's got VR (yawn).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would contend this statement in part. I agree that the distortion is strong at the wide end. Correctable, of course, but annoying indeed. The f4 comment is, I would say, somewhat excessive. DOF: in such focal range, except at 35mm, to reduce DOF by any meaningful amount you have to go below f2, a 24 1.4 is by far your best option if this aspect is what you are after. Low light, for static subjects, the VR in the 16-35 is all but a "yawn" thing, in fact it works surprisingly well (surprisingly for me, I was somewhat skeptical of VR in a WA lens). For moving subjects, of course, it does not help. But with modern FF Nikon cameras (I'm thinking D700 here) one should seriously think whether he prefers to go to one stop wider aperture or to rise ISO one stop. If diglloyd findings about the 17-35 and 16-35 are a guidance, I would definitely sooner use the 16-35 lens at f4 and 6400 ISO, than the 17-35 at 2.8 and 3200 ISO, with confidence that the quality loss would be less significant. Then, there is no substitute to fast glass and what do you do if you need 12800 ISO AND f2.8? True, but this is not exactly going to happen frequently I'd say.<br>

In my experience, a gain of one stop (be it in lens max aperture or high ISO noise alike) is not highly significant in the real world, in the sense that is hardly going to make your life much easier or expand significantly your possibilities. It is of course always welcome. The 16-35 f4 is a compromise lens as any other is. The 14-24 compromises on size, weight, range and cost, but has impressive optical quality, the 16-35 compromises on size (it is indeed large), max aperture and distortion, but is very sharp, has a very useful focal range, is less expensive and has VR (which if your subject is static, helps much more than one stop), and is lighter... I would not call either crippled, just cut for different sets of needs, but both in a reasonable way.</p>

<p>L.</p>

 

[fishit]

<p>From everything I have read and heard about the 14-24 the lens is quite unique and can produce some fantastic photos. But after talking and reading I chose a Nikon 16-35mm f/4 G ED VR stabilized ultra-wide zoom. One reason VR, and a trusted friend who knew my work suggested it. I have to think of cost as well as I rebuild. I wanted to go to FX next year, the thief changed my plans.</p>

<p>I still own a couple DSLR cameras as well as several good DX lens. I am just now just learning the FX format equipment. @Luca, thanks for the link I will read further. I tend to talk to people about what I want to and like to do and based on my budget they suggest Lens. Gary Petersen is a good friend who knows his cameras gives good advise. I also need the feed back people were kind enough to provide here for me to better understand the equipment. I plan to get 17-35 and a 24-70 next year.</p>

<p>I have learned a lot while reading through this thread. Not only about the original question but the added insight and willing to help was/is pretty impressive. The nice people who took the time to give input and experience with the equipment, and their questions to me. Thanks to all, it speaks very well for the Photo.net community. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I only have limited experience with the 16-35mm/f4 AF-S VR, but as far as I know, the main problem is that it is poor at 16mm. If you can zoom out a bit to like 18mm, it should become much better and on FX, 18mm is still very wide.</p>

[shadforth_stephen]

<p>I've just spent a day researching whats available in the 18-21 range for a D700. Primes? Yes...the fat zooms are just that... fat, heavy and expensive. Even the good ones like the 20-35 have significant barrel distortion at 20mm which you would have to correct. Everyone is obsessed with zooms...but landscape photography is a considered and slow exercise, requiring careful composition, almost always careful manual focus and longer exposures at smaller f stops. You are in the f8-f11 for DOF, so thats another reason to go primes...small, beautifully made and sharp.<br>

Here are some delectable lenses and so sharp as:<br>

Nikon: 18/f2.8AFD (Moose Peterson recommends after a long field test), 20/f2.8AFD & AIs, 20/f4 AI (considered the best and is also the smallest).<br>

Zeiss F mount: 18/f3.5, 21/f2.8 (superior to Nikon primes possibly in sharpness, corner to corner, but you pay $$)<br>

The pick out of all these is probably the 20/f4 AI. And there are a few on ebay up to $600. You would then have a keeper that will only go up in value.</p>

[acarodp]

<p>Shun, I would not say that the 16-35 is weak at 16mm in my experience (and for my own copy of course). So far what I see is that the lens is really impressive between 20 and 28 (unsurprising, center of the range), a bit weaker at 16, but not by much unless you look to the extreme corners. I would say its weakest spot is 35mm, where it loses some bite. It is not bad by any means, but there I would definitely tend to use my 35 f2, which at f4 - 5.6 has a sharpness the 16-35 cannot quite match. The main limit at 16, instead, is the heavy distortion, which actually turns it into a 17mm once you have corrected for it and cropped. But this is an example of what I was saying before about compromises: I mostly use the 20-24 range, have a better (and small, and portable) alternative at 35, and have not all this pressing need for 16-18mm, so the compromises the lens has fit me perfectly.</p>

<p>Shadforth: if you look at my gallery you'll see I'm mostly a prime shooter. The only focal lengths at which I kept using zooms after my "conversion" to primes are the wide angle ones. This comes from a simple fact: Nikon WA primes are not so good, and not very fast, unless of course you think about the tilt-shift or the new 1.4: I have tried the 24 1.4 and since then I lost my peace of mind because that lens is just fantastic: but I cannot afford it.<br>

But I own since the film era a 20 2.8 AFD, loved it on film, but it is just VERY disappointing on digital. My 18-70 and 12-24 both outperformed it easily on DX. The 12-24 outperforms it even on FX, despite being a DX lens (it covers FX from 18 upwards, although the corner quality is poor). The 16-35 runs circles around it. Digital sensors are picky with wide angles, and the design of the 20 2.8 is 20 years old. Longer focal lengths have stood the change much better (I love my 35/2). So I'm all in the "primes are sharper" camp, but it is just not true at these short focal lengths with old designs. Then again, shot at f8 or f11 I guess the 20 2.8 holds its own, but this is not what I do most of the time (but you mention landscape so it is a different story).</p>

<p>L.</p>

[fishit]

<p>The VR is a factor for me and I liked what I saw on several websites with examples of the 16-35. It is not a Prime 2.8f but it seems to have other qualities that make it worth the money. I will be expanding my FX collection and even DX is a real deal comes along. I think both have some merit.</p>

<p>B&H kind of missed ship date on the 16-35 and I wanted to test the lens at a Balloon glow by Mirror Lake in Eden Park. Hope it is here by Friday, it will be a good test. Abe's will have my 28-300 tomorrow even though I put incorrect data in the ship to field. I will post some Sunday for people to see how it looks. I hope to use the 16-35, lets see if B&H comes thru.</p>