Wide angle zoom

[leonard_forte2]

Looking to buy a wide angle zoom for my d800. The. Hoices seem to be nikon 16-35 f/4, tokina 17-35 f/4. Im not i terestes in the Tokina

16-28. The nikon is 500$ more than the tokina 17-35 but i read about the distortion especially at 16 mm. Any suggestions would be

appreciated. The nikon lens is also bigger.

[rconey]

<p>The Nikon 17-35 f2.8 works well. Extreme corner sharpness isn't great but that is common. I've been using it a lot. You could look at used ones at KEH to save some money.</p>

[leonard_forte2]

I would prefer the nikon 16-35 over the nikon 17-35(which is more expensive)

[jose_angel]

<p>How wide? If you can set the upper "limit" to 24mm, the 14-24 seems the best choice. If you need to go beyond, nothing to say. I understand the 14-24 could be not as versatile as the 16/17-35.</p>

[Art X Photography]

<p>Given you have yourself a pretty good camera body in the D800 I would suggest sticking to Nikon glass rather than any other brand. Firstly, why compromise on your lens? this only serves to undermine the quality of a 36MP D800 sensor . Secondly, the added $500 is a small cost when you consider a) you have already spent a large amount of money on a body and b)the quality in image is well worth the extra cost. Thirdly, I use the Nikon 16-35mm f/4 and can honestly say its well worth the money spent. With very little vignetting and blurring on the edges (@ 16mm) that can easily be corrected in post production with no cost to image quality and sharpness throughout (@ 18mm and above) this lens will be with you long after you've decided to upgrade your camera body. I believe in the school of thought that suggests investing in quality lenses before investing in camera bodies.</p>

[leonard_forte2]

What i dont like about the nikon 16-35 is the distortion wide open. Is there any noticeable distortion at 18 mm?

[leonard_forte2]

I'd like to mention that I had the Tokia 12-24mm for the d200 a d was quite gappy with it. I think tere tends to be a bias

toward Nikon glass. I wonder if Tokina 17-35 is quite co parable to nikons 16-35.

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>While I'm very happy with my 14-24, I just want to head it off as a suggestion here - it's weakest (although it also loses most of its distortion) at the long end, so unless you actually want it as a 14mm, where it's exceptional, I'd think carefully. It's still a very good 24mm lens, but I wouldn't be surprised if one of the other options was better value for money if the 17-35mm range is where your interests lie. Of course, at the longer end of the 14-24, the lens with fewest optical issues is the Zeiss 21mm, but it's not a zoom...</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I would suggest sticking to Nikon glass rather than any other brand. Firstly, why compromise on your lens? this only serves to undermine the quality of a 36MP D800 sensor .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the tokina reportedly has close to zero distortion, while the 16-35 VR is known to have excessive distortion at 16mm. therefore, the nikon may be more of a compromise on the sensor.</p>

<p>i'd be a bit more careful about making huge generalizations which cannot be backed up in every case, i.e. nikon lenses are always better than other brands. it's more accurate to say, sometimes but not always. tokina makes some good lenses and always with excellent build quality and high-quality optics in their AT-X line which sometimes exceed nikon variants. in the case of the 17-35, they seemed to have tweaked it to be distortion-free, which is a big plus for a landscape shooter.</p>

[Caledonia]

<p>The Nikon 16-35 f4 vr works beautifully on the d800 and the distortion at 16mm is easily corrected in Photoshop. Edge to edge sharpness from 5.6 to f11.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>FWIW, check how the 14-24 performs against the 24-70; even been its weakest point, it`s still an outstanding performer; check the image below:</p>

<div></div>

[jose_angel]

<p>Now, check the bottom right corner,taken with the 14-24 at 24mm, f2.8 on a D800 (100ISO, RAW capture converted in NX2, "Normal" settings, all "tricks" disabled, no sharpening applied):</p>

[jose_angel]

<div></div>

[jose_angel]

<p>Compare it to the 24-70 @ 24mm, very same conditions:</p><div></div>

[jose_angel]

<p>I think the 14-24 is a lens to consider if we´re looking for maximum performance on the D800. If we look for versatility, we could be forced to sacrifice some benefits...</p>

[richard_barron]

<p>Just so everyone is on the same page: distortion is not a function of aperture and cannot be corrected by stopping down.<br>

If i had a D800 in hand, I would look hard at the 24mm f/1.4.</p>

[Art X Photography]

<p>Leonard @ 18mm and above there is no distortion or vignetting in the 16-35mm.<br /> @ Eric,<br /> the compromise on the sensor (as I have suggested here) isn't specific to the widest angle of the lens where, as you suggest, the tokina may have the edge over the nikon. The compromise IS however in the sharpness of the lens <strong>overall</strong> and on this point I stand by my comment that the Nikon glass is in fact sharper and better able to optimise the camera's sensor. I'd suggest that's far more important to landscape photography! I haven't made any generalisation of Nikon <strong>"always"</strong>being better than Tokina (re-read my post please). Thats your interpretation and you have simply inferred that from my comment. To date Tonika do not produce a lens capable of maximising the D800 sensor, thats simply a fact. In fact only a few Nikon lenses can do this well. As I have stated and as Douglas has re-iterated, the distortion of the Nikon at its widest can easily be corrected in post production.<br>

I can give you many examples where Tokina produce a better lens than Nikon in DX format but thats not the issue at hand here. The thread is specific to the D800<br>

To use your words, I'd be a bit more careful when interpreting someone's comments when offering advise.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>To date Tonika do not produce a lens capable of maximising the D800 sensor, thats simply a fact.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>have you personally tested all the "Tonika" lenses on a d800? if not, it's speculation/hearsay.</p>

<p>mind you, i'm not saying the 16-35 isnt a sharp lens, but the comment has been made before that nikon should have made it an 18-35.</p>

[Art X Photography]

<p>Eric, I do not need to test every Tokina lens to appreciate what many professional photographers are saying about the D800 and what lenses will maximise its performance. I also don't need to use the D800 to know that in order to work with the large file size of the 36MP processor one needs to have at least a 8Gb memory ram speed processor computer.<br>

I also haven't tried all Nikon lenses on my D700 but I know my 70-200mm f/2.8 is far better than other Nikon's zoom lenses based on its performance , versatility and price. Again to use your words this is not hearsay and speculation but an educated guess. That educated guess is based on my use of the Nikon 16-35mm AND the countless forums which support what I'm saying.<br>

I would also add that the Tokina 16-28 is heavier and doesn't take filters. I haven't used the Tokina to also know this, but just like these facts are undisputed I also accept when professionals who actually use the D800 make comments regarding the best glass used.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>art, not to delve too deeply into semantics, but it appears we have differing definitions of "facts." AFAIK, a fact is not a speculative opinion or even an educated guess, but something which can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt and is therefore indisputable.</p>

<p>Unless you have personally tested all the tokina lenses on a d800, you cannot possibly know for a fact they are worse than nikon equivalents, nor that they do not maximize the d800 sensor--which in itself is a loaded question, as that bar may be too high for current nikon lenses.in other words, until published tests involving the d800 and these lenses are actually released, any comment regarding lenses which outresolve the sensor would have to be purely speculative.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I know my 70-200mm f/2.8 is far better than other Nikon's zoom lenses based on its performance , versatility and price.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>actually, i find the 24-70 a bit sharper at f/2.8-4. i do like the 70-200 II's subject isolation ability at 200mm. but "better" is a subjective term, to be sure, since you wouldnt use a 70-200 and 14-24 for the same thing, would you?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That educated guess is based on my use of the Nikon 16-35mm AND the countless forums which support what I'm saying.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>so, then, do you discount any opinion which doesnt support what you're saying? if so, that's awfully convenient.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would also add that the Tokina 16-28 is heavier and doesn't take filters. I haven't used the Tokina to also know this</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>uh, for the record, we were discussing the tokina 17-35. which <em>does</em> take filters and is smaller and lighter than the 16-35VR, not the 16-28 which is comparable to the 14-24.</p>

<p>getting back on-topic, the issue really is sharpness vs. distortion. the only relevant questions are these: is the nikon sharper? just in the center?or the corners too? and if so, does that come at the expense of distortion? and what's more important for a landscape shooter, absolute sharpness or lack of distortion? everything else you have said is just snobbery.</p>

<p> </p>

[Art X Photography]

<p>I'd happily continue this conversation in email and let others continue the thread in the spirit its intended. clearly you have lost the meaning of that spirit Eric :)</p>