16-35 f4 vs 17-55 f2.8

[sami_palta1]

<p>Planning to buy a wide angle lens.</p>

<p>16-35 mm f4 around 1600-1650 USD<br /> 17-55 mm f2.8 around 1600 USD</p>

<p>17-55 f2.8 should be better lens!<br /> Why 16-35 f4 is nearly same price with a f2.8 lens?</p>

<p>Which one would I buy for general purpose wide angle lens?</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Which camera?<br /> If you`re using a FX camera, the 17-55 doesn`t work (it`s a DX-format lens).<br /> If you`re on DX, the extended range of he 17-55 could be more convenient for you. The 16-35 is designed to cover the FX format (bigger), and benefits of the VR system. The slower aperture is the drawback.</p>

[sami_palta1]

<p>D800</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>So the 17-55 is not for you. The 16-35 is from the latest "G" series, with VR, exotic glass and Nanocoating (=expensive).<br /> Then the "only" option in this range is the 16-35/4VR, unless you go for the good "old" 17-35/2.8 (which, BTW, should be updated anytime).</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>So, for the D800, the 17-55 is a lousy choice basically, as it will not cover the entire sensor. The 16-35 f/4 VR or the older 17-35 f/2.8 are better choices.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>For FX my favorite wide angle has become the 35/1.4 AF-S; for the ultrawide the 14-24/2.8. This pair of lenses does cost quite a lot admittedly, but the image quality is phenomenal. Also, an alternative is the new 28/1.8 AF-S which I haven't used yet, but it's much less expensive than the 35/1.4. While I use some heavy lenses equipment also, given a choice of high performance in a comparatively small and lightweight package it is usually my choice. The 14-24 I use for interior photography and occasional forest landscape scenes but I don't "walk around" with it due to its considerable weight and extreme angle of view. Nevertheless whenever I have used it the results always impress me with quality.</p>

<p>The 24-70 should also not be ignored, for general purpose wide angle use (travel, event, street, whole body portraits and group shots) I find the range quite practical. This lens is also quite big and heavy, but again the quality rarely disappoints, even if it isn't quite at the level of the 14-24 or 35/1.4.</p>

[sami_palta1]

<p>14-24 is too wide and distortion should be much too.</p>

<p>If I can find 16-35 f2.8 would be great for me together witha 24-70 f2.8</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>There is no 16-35/2.8.</p>

<p>I have a suggerence; the Live View feature on the D800 is great (fast and comfortable compared to previous cameras), and manual focus lenses are preferable to my taste with this feature. I`m not used to video, but I have read everywhere that they are also prefered here, and video is another great feature on the D800.</p>

<p>It may be interesting perhaps to learn how to take the most of the camera before buying all the expensive gear in a hurry... it could happen that depending on your approach, you could prefer e.g. a good manual focus wide angle prime to the zoom. Or maybe this is not the case. Just a thought.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>14-24 is too wide and distortion should be much too.</em></p>

<p>I cannot argue about the first point but the 14-24 has significantly <em>less</em> distortion at equal focal lengths than the 17-35, 16-35, or 24-70mm Nikkors.</p>

 

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>i would absolutely positively get the 16-35 at this point.</p>

<p>The 14-24 is only for ultra-wide JUNKIES. If you don't KNOW you're one of those people, you'd probably be happier with the 16-35. And btw, according to what I've seen, the 14-24's distortion is easy to correct, unlike a lot of ultra-wides.</p>

[eric friedemann]

<p>Note that while the 16-35mm f/4.0 isn't an f/2.8 lens, it has Vibration Reduction which, I find, gives me two f/stops of stability in lower light. Also, the D800 is going to be very useable at higher ISOs, so as not to require an f/2.8 lens in many circumstances. I've been quite pleased with the 16-35mm f/4.0 and would recommend it to others.</p>

<p>Ilkka, are you saying that the 16-35mm f/4.0 has less distortion that can't be corrected in, say, ACR, than the 14-24mm f/2.8? If so, are there any examples of an A-B comparison of the two lenses posted online showing this phenomenon?</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>Ilkka, are you saying that the 16-35mm f/4.0 has less distortion </em></p>

<p>I said the<strong> 14-24</strong> has less distortion than the other zooms mentioned (at equal focal lengths). Geometrical distortion can always be corrected in software but the issue there is that areas of the image near the edges will have to be cropped out to end up with a rectangular image after correction. The more distortion there is that you want to correct, the smaller the image becomes and the less it will look like it did when composed in the camera (and significant compositional elements can be found missing). At least I find it difficult to remember to leave extra space around the edges with <em>some</em> lenses when I don't need to do it with most. So I stick with lenses that have low distortion so I don't really have to correct it except in unusual situations.</p>

<p><em>The 14-24 is only for ultra-wide JUNKIES.</em></p>

<p>Or anyone who wants a high quality image at its range of focal lengths and can afford it.</p>

[eric friedemann]

<p>Ilkka, sorry, I transposed the two lenses. I'll refine my question. </p>

<p>Is there somewhere online I can see the same pre-correction images taken with the 14-24mm and the 16-35mm showing the 14-24mm producing superior results at, perhaps, 16mm, 20mm and 24mm? I'm skeptical.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Not exactly an image but a sketch can be seen in photozone.de for each lens. Check the numbers. Surprising.<br /> When the 16-35 was released, it happened the same to me. It`s hard to believe that a wider and faster lens performs better than a slower, not as extreme one, but... look at the front element!</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>Is there somewhere online I can see the same pre-correction images taken with the 14-24mm and the 16-35mm </em></p>

<p>Yes, e.g., here is a "brick wall" comparison made at 16mm:</p>

<p>http://www.fotografie.fr/fotoforum/viewtopic.php?t=648&f=54</p>

<p>Another source is photozone.de. Unfortunately they don't show exactly the same focal lengths for the 14-24 and 16-35, except at f = 21mm. Their data show (negative values = barrel, <strong>positive</strong> = pincushion):</p>

<p>14-24: 14mm -3.9%, 18mm -1.62%, 21mm -0.505%, 24mm -0.246%<br>

16-35: ___ 16mm -4.32%, ______ 21mm -0.911%, ____ 28mm <strong>0.859%</strong>, 35mm<strong> 1.07%</strong></p>

<p>At 14mm the 14-24 does require distortion correction on architectural subjects, but from about 17mm to 24mm I am fine with the images without correction - I don't mind a little barrel distortion on wide angle images. Anyway at these focal lengths the correction changes the image framing only a little bit. Pincushion and really strong barrel or moustache distortion are a different matter - my stomach doesn't take them well. :-) Your mileage may vary. </p>

[eric friedemann]

<p>That's interesting- after I get D800E bodies and see how I like the 16-35mm's performance at that level of resolution, I'll have to think about adding a 14-24mm. I'd really prefer the 14-24mm's lower distortion in a lens that accepted front-mounted 77mm filters. </p>

[sami_palta1]

<p>@ Ilkka: 35 mm is not a "enough" wide to my opinion.<br>

@ Ilkka & Hamm: I am suspicious about 14-24 but have time to think about.</p>

<p>What about 17-35 f/2.8 and/or 18 mm prime f/2.8 ?</p>

<p> </p>

[cyrus_procter]

<p>Note that the 16-35mm is pretty weak @ 16mm, soft corners, hefty distortion and fall off. At about 18mm its pretty good but about 30mms to 35mms it starts getting pretty weak again. Its awesome from 18-30mms, or at least for the most part. I would not go with the 17-35mm, my AF was so so (it was one of Nikon's very first AF-S lenses), but the 17-35mm was also a lot smaller. The 17-35mm has a really cool look, or at least I thought so, but there is a catch, its a softer look. Although comparing it at 20mms to my 16-35mm F/4, I was pretty darn impressed with center sharpness from both lenses (on my D7000 which will be a similar pixel count to your D800). None the less corners are pretty weak all around at F/2.8. I would go with the 16-35mm personally. Like someone pointed out the 17-35mm is due for an update any day.</p>

[bms]

<p>I have the 17-35 and 14-24. I have not had the chance to use either on the D800 yet, but I hear the 17-35 may be suboptimal. In a sense the 16-35 is more similar to the 17-35 though, and I think it has it beat in sharpness.</p>

<p>However I would go by what you use it for. The 14-24 hardly is a "walk around" lens, it is quite huge and at least I am paranoid about damaging the front element. The 16-35 sounds nice and probably will be better for travel/walking around and will cover most scenarios unless you EITHER want to go super wide OR really need f2.8. For example I use my 14-24 for panoramas and really cherish the low distortion and its 14mm....</p>

<p>My personal bias is that if you use it for landscapes, you'll probably are OK with the 16-35.</p>

[sami_palta1]

<p>It seems 16-35 is to go with.</p>

<p>Thanks all for contributions.</p>

[Caledonia]

<p>I had the Nikon 17-35 2.8 and changed it to the Nikon 16-35 vr f4 and find it sharper with better contrast.</p>

[fred_nicolls]

<p>Nikon has applied for a patent of new 16-35 f2.8.<br>

http://digicame-info.com/2012/04/16-35mm-f28.html<br>

I hope new one will go on sale soon.</p>