16-36 f4 vs 17-35 f2.8 - corner sharpness

[5711]

<p>any thoughts on this?</p>

<p>using a d3, going to buy one of those but couldn't get a 17-35 to test yet.<br>

who has both lenses and therefore can say something in regard of CORNER SHARPNESS, and only that.</p>

<p>thank you very much</p>

<p>cheers</p>

 

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I can't comment on either from personal experience, but I just wanted to point out that photozone.de has reviewed both, and has graphs of their corner measurements, if that helps. Both look a bit iffy at the wide end, but it seems that the f/2.8 lens mostly has the edge by the time it's stopped down to f/4. That said, the 16-35 is very well-regarded. Good luck.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>I only have the 16-35 but not the 17-35 so I can't report from personal experience. Have a look at photographylife and check out the 16-35 review, it's got a comparison. I have seen the same result in a youtube video (might have been Jared Polin) - the 17-35 needs to be stopped down one or even two stops more to match the 16-35 in the corners.</p>

[wgpinc]

<p>You can look at the photozone results here:<br>

16-35mm 4.0 http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/492-nikkor_afs_1635_4_ff?start=1<br>

17-35mm 2.8 http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/672-nikkorafs173528ff?start=1<br>

Of course there are other factors to consider. They are both very good lenses. Good luck!</p>

 

[dan_brown4]

<p>I had the 17-35/2.8 and sold it, which I regret doing.</p>

<p>It's an excellent lens.</p>

[robert_stig]

<p>Take this into consideration. VR wont help you with moving objects. but if you need because of shaky hands its the way to go. the 17-35 will have a brighter VF and 2.8 is very useable for that extra shutter speed to freeze moving people. but it will be a bit softer.</p>

<p>personally id buy the 17-35. because I shoot people and I need the shutter speed. although I hardly use my 2.8 zooms at 2.8 but I think at f/4, out of both, the 17-35 might edge it out a bit.</p>

<p>you might consider the tokina 16-28 2.8</p>

[5711]

<p>thanks guys</p>

 

[5711]

<p>17-35 it is</p>

<p>found one in a store in vienna.<br>

it is a used one, but very very cheap price of 500€ since the metal got scratched.<br>

they sent it to nps and get it check upon.</p>

<p>i did some testshots with it and compared it to the 16-35 @f5.6<br>

it is sharper than the 16-35</p>

<p>i just dnt get it...why would they release a new lens like the 16-35 with vr when you can hold still up to 1/8th of asecond on 16mm....easy..if it absolutely has to be..1" will work too..so what the hell nikon..</p>

<p>anyway, justw anted to say thanks.<br>

never really trusted photozone, since some reviews summaries are ..questionable..this time they had it right</p>

<p>cheers</p>

 

[steve_bingham]

<p>I have tested both, side-by-side. If you are looking at corner sharpness, the 17-35 wins. especially at 17mm and wide open! By the time you get to 24mm they pretty much even out. The 16-35 has some serious vignetting and resolution problems in the corners at 16mm. The 16-35 is loved mostly for its VR.</p>

[5711]

<p>thank you steve.</p>

<p>that is exactly what photozone.de suggests. it is older, yet better.<br>

the only real problem i'd say is the lack of good water and dust protection.<br>

whicha ctually forced me to get a rain cover...<br>

well</p>

<p>..</p>