Your opinions on Nikons 16-35mm F4 or 24-70mm 2.8

[imagesbymonroe]

<p>I have over the years posted general opinion questions here and always found the reply's beneficial. After 5 yrs I am now full frame and I am rounding out my lens selections. I own D700 and Sigma 50mm 1.4 , Sigma 85mm 1.4 and Nikon 80-200mmD2.8. I shoot street photography, Events (Weddings) and portraits.<br>

I need to be able to go wider since I've sold all my DX wide angle lens. Sigma 10-20mm and Nikon 17-55mm 2.8.<br>

I kept my D300 as a backup body and have SB800 but I prefer natural light whenever possible.<br>

I am considering the Nikon 16-35mm F4 or the 24-70mm 2.8. I know what the 24-70mm brings to the table as wedding lens and bokeh capability but I am wondering if the 16-35mm would be a better fit since I have the 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.4 as well as the 80/200mm 2.8 to provide and Isolate the scenes that bokeh would be nice to have in the image.<br>

Please give me your opinions realizing that what ever the final decision I will still have a nice setup.<br>

Thanks in advance.<br>

www.imagesbymonroe.com</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<p>Both lenses are excellent. I am very impressed with the 16-35mm f/4G as a less expensive version of the 14-24mm f/2.8G which is a truly astoundign lens. Don't forget to look at the 24mm f/1.4G which is also state of the art for wide angles. </p>

[bms]

<p>Well...<br /> personally, the 24-70 is my favorite lens.... but I hear the 16-35 is very good, they mostly do completely different things.<br /> I do not have the 16-35, but I do won the 14-24 and recently acquired a 17-35, with (still hesitant) plans to replacing the 14-24, as 14mm is just too wide for me, but mostly as it (the 17-35) is more practical to shoot with. Probably would not want to miss the 17-24 range though....</p>

<p>I would look at a few of your favorite DX shots... how many time did you use the 10-16mm (~16-24 equivalent) range on DX? Not a lot? Then 24mm may be wide enough....</p>

[richardsnow]

<p>If you're used to the 17-55mm f/2.8DX, then you will feel right at home with the 24-70mm f/2.8. I moved from DX to FX and the first (only) zoom I bought was the 24-70. It is<strong><em> always</em></strong> in my bag...along with my 35mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.4</p>

<p>I do plan on purchasing the 14-24mm if I find I need wider than 24mm, but right now I can't justify the expense.</p>

<p>I can't personally vouch for the 16-35 as I have never shot it, but I understand it's a wonderful lens if you don't need anything faster than f/4.</p>

<p>RS</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I find it hard to believe that you shoot weddings with the D700 and not yet have the 24-70mm/f2.8. To me, that is a no brainer.</p>

<p>The 16-35mm/f4 should be a good landscape lens. I don't think it is as useful for weddings and events.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>24-70.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>If you shoot professionally shoot weddings, I think the 24-70 is a must to have.<br>

If not, I think the 16-35 have a very useful range to be paired with a 80-200. You`ll miss the 35 to 80 range, useful for people photography but covered by the 50 and 80-200. It`s not a bad idea, IMHO. The 16-35 will be great for street shots. Another topic is if the f4 works for you.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Since you have a fast 50 and 85, the 35/1.4 AF-S would be a natural wide angle complement. It's pricey but very sharp, and you'd be able to shoot in very low light. Much as I like to use fast primes for my personal shooting, in weddings the 24-70 is my main lens. I shoot the majority of the ceremony pics and almost all outdoor shots with it. Indoors, during the reception, I use the 24-70 until the window light fades, and that's when I bring out the fast primes.</p>

<p>It's certainly possible to shoot an entire wedding with primes but it's not what I would recommend. The 24-70 while it has overlap with your 50, is the best lens for this type of work and in any case if you shoot weddings you must have some redundancy in lenses (as well as bodies and flashes) to avoid disaster in case something stops working. So think of the fact that the 50 is included in the 24-70 range as an advantage rather than something excessive.</p>

<p>I am not much of a fan of superwide angle lenses and use my 14-24 basically for interior photography only; the 16-35 has a bit more useful range than the 14-24 but I wasn't impressed by its optical quality at typical distances used for indoor people photography. So for the zoom I definitely recommend the 24-70 and then for low light I'd get the 35/1.4 so you have another lens for wide shots in case you drop the 24-70 during an event, and of course for those candle lit and other shots in very low light.</p>