Need feedback on wide angle zoom/set up

[glen_sansone1]

Here is what I am configuring as my lens stable

 

I shoot a lot of events and kids and people and scenery, so I have to be quick and versatile. .

 

16mm AF Fisheye

17-35mm 2.8

24-70mm 2.8

50mm 1.4 G

85mm 1,4 Ais

105mm 2,8 G

70-200 2,8 VRII

 

Do you think I am bunched up in the wide angles? There's a little overlap. A few of these lenses I don't have yet, specifically the 17-35. I

want an f ring so I can use it on my film bodies (I am sick of all these gelded lenses), plus the 14-24 doesn't take filters and is too

unorthodox despite its brilliance. Anyone have a 17-35? I hear mixed feedback, with some claiming its the softest wide angle zoom Nikon

makes. Do you agree? Is it noticeably soft? I like the build of the older pro lenses better. I've seen a 14-24 break into 3 pieces from a very

short fall.

[leslie_cheung]

<p>I like my 17-35mm fine but I think you have too many lenses if you want to be "quick and versatile." I would stick with the wide and tele 2.8 zooms and a fast prime in the bag... </p>

[keith_b1]

<p>As long as you don'y try to use them all at one time, you don't have too many lenses.<br>

I can recommend the 17-35; extremely useful, and at the wider apertures friendly to human faces.<br>

And, like you say, not a crippled "G" lens.</p>

[Matthew Brennan]

<blockquote>

<p>Do you think I am bunched up in the wide angles?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No.</p>

<p>I don't think you have too much wide coverage. If you use each lens for specific purposes then each has it's place in your kit. I have an Ai 16mm f/3.5 fisheye and the AF-S 17-35 f/2.8 Nikkor and regularly use both for different reasons.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Anyone have a 17-35? I hear mixed feedback, with some claiming its the softest wide angle zoom Nikon makes</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 17-35mm is a fabulous zoom. IMHO it is equal or as good as just about all the Nikkor primes in the 18-35mm range. Soft? Who says that, my copy is plenty sharp - yes - sharp even wide open</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>plus the 14-24 doesn't take filters</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Lee now make a nice (but expensive filter kit for this lens)</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I've seen a 14-24 break into 3 pieces from a very short fall.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>So what?</p>

<p> </p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Do you really need a zoom below 24mm? How about the AF 20mm f/2.8 prime? A 17-35 is only going to fill the small range of 17-24mm that isn't covered already. That's not much of a gap, and personally I find that focal lengths below 20mm only get rare usage.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I wouldn't go wider than 24 shooting people in the kinds of situations you describe.</p>

[Rob F.]

<p>I'd predict that the 24-70 is the one you'll use 90% of the time. The fast 85mm will come in handy for low-light closeups. If you had those two on two bodies, I think it would handle 99%. I don't know why you need a fisheye, or a lens as wide as 17mm, for people.</p>

[CvhKaar]

<blockquote>

<p>Lee now make a nice (but expensive filter kit for this lens)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As does FotoDiox ....:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.fotodiox.com/product_info.php?products_id=1492">http://www.fotodiox.com/product_info.php?products_id=1492</a></p>

[glen_sansone1]

<p>Thanks. Fisheye is really for fun. It has its place, but not a regular workhorse. <br>

I sort of agree with you Rob. It is a small gap to fill with such a beefy lens. I agree that the 24-70 will get a lot of use, and having some primes sprinkled in rounds things out nicely. I do like to shoot landscapes, so that was the major reason for having a 17-35 -- really for that purpose. I will look at the 20 AF. Interesting thought....</p>

[glen_sansone1]

<p>Oh, and also so I have a wide angle zoom I can use on my F3 and F5. </p>

[glen_sansone1]

Anyone still rocking the 28-70 2,8? Seems like a better build quality than 24-70 and just as good.

[john_narsuitus]

<p>I use lenses similar to the ones you listed:</p>

<p>16mm f/2.8 AIS fisheye<br>

20-35mm f/2.8 AF-D<br>

35-70mm f/2.8 AF-D<br>

50mm f/1.4 AF-D<br>

85mm f/1.8 AI<br>

105mm f/2.8 macro<br>

80-200mm f/2.8 D AFS</p>

<p>Yes, you have some overlap in your wide-angle focal lengths but it is no worse than mine because I also have a Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G AF-S.</p>

<p><a href="

<p> </p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>for landscape i'd take a look at the tokina 16-28/2.8. the 17-35 is really a PJ lens.</p>

[ariel_s1]

<p>First, your kit doesn't have any overlap. Just because two lenses have a little bit of the same range doesn't mean that they're redundant. The 17-35 is a wholly different beast than the 24-70mm, unless you only use the 24-70mm for wide angle shots. I have an 18-70mm lens and a 55-200mm lens, but I wouldn't say that I have any overlap in my lens capabilities. One is a midrange zoom, and the other is a decidedly telephoto lens. They both work well for different situations. That being said, every photographer needs to buy the lenses that they need for their preferred style of photography. If there were one correct answer, then the other choices wouldn't exist. You're not supposed to collect focal lengths like they're Pokemon. "I have 14mm to 300mm covered!" Great, too bad you only shoot between 24-50mm. If you're an event shooter, chances are that the 24-70mm lens can get you 85-90% of your shots, and the 70-200mm can get you the rest. The other lenses are useful, but only for specialized situations.</p>

<p>Gelded lenses? Someone's been taking too much Ken Rockwell advice to heart. Try leaning on some more trustworthy reviews. I don't see anything unorthodox about the 14-24mm, unless you consider prime-worthy optical performance in a zoom lens being unorthodox. In which case, pile some unorthodoxy in spades, please! What filters do you use at events?</p>

[stevejw]

<p>The "G is for gelded" line means little. It's way more convenient to change aperture via the dial, you only have to move your finger slightly, how this isn't seen as an improvement is beyond me.<br>

Unless of course there are some older Nikon bodies that don't have this dial, I could understand anyone not liking the missing aperture ring then. Most people would be shooting with the dual dial, digital bodies now though, surely.</p>

<p>Anyway, I really wish Nikon would update their 17-35. The 16-35 is f4, has heinous distortion at 16-17mm and a little soft at 35mm. It does have good centre sharpness, is light and relatively inexpensive though.<br>

The 14-24 can't take filters, although it is optically fantastic for how wide it is on FX.</p>

<p>A 16-35 f/2.8G without VR would be awesome & really what I'me waiting for Nikon to do, (if they ever do it). Perhaps the 16-35 f4 was meant to be it's replacement..?<br>

The current 17-35 f/2.8 is okay but it's old, big & heavy and the AF motor has issues.<br>

It's also stupidly over priced in Australia, $2500 AUD, that's about 2 or 3 hundred more than the 14-24!</p>