16-35mm f/4 or 17-35mm f/2.8 for action/sports

[jason_roberts3]

<p>I live in the PNW and spend a lot of time in the backcountry taking photos of skiing, mountain biking and landscapes. I have a Nikon D610 and am looking at the 16-35mm f/4 and 17-35mm f/2.8. I have the opportunity to purchase a very lightly used 16-35mm f/4 for $750 from a friend or a new 17-35mm f/2.8 (might be able to find one used).<br>

Most of my photos (85%) I will be taking will be of people moving fast in rugged terrain with either a white/snow background or occasional green/forrest background. I also plan on using this for landscape photos (15%) in the mountains. Yes, I know that means bright, dark, fast, slow and everything in between.<br>

The price I can get the 16-35mm is making it very tempting for me but my gut is telling me the 17-35mm might be the better option. $750 vs $ $1700 is a good motivator to go for the 16-35mm.<br>

What do you think?<br>

Thanks in advance!</p>

[jonb]

<p>I think either would be serviceable. Obviously, there may be circumstances where the f/2.8 of the 17-35 would be nice to have, but I suspect most of the time you will have enough light to work with the f/4 lens, and the DoF difference isn't as significant (to me, anyway) at those focal lengths as it might be at longer ones. The VR of the 16-35 can come in handy for panning shots, too, which I would probably want to take advantage of for snow sports and cycling. Along with the price difference, that would probably tilt me toward the 16-35.</p>

[Two23]

<p>If you are mostly taking daytime shots with lots of snow, I would think f4 would be enough.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[Matthew Brennan]

<p>It appears you have a pretty good understanding as to the mild dilema you face. The 17-35mm is indeed expensive compared to the 16-35mm you know of and you know that if you buy the 17-35mm the price difference you are paying is for a small amount of extra light yet not an insignificant amount of light.</p>

<p>I'm no action / sports photographer but I have borrowed a friend's 16-35mm lens on a couple of occasions to try it out - I usually shoot landscapes with a 17-35mm on my D700. I loathe noisy images esp. in underexposed sections of my exposures. With the current crop of sensors (D610 is even better for noise control than the d700 I believe) you could crank up the ISO sufficiently to get fast enough shutter speeds for crisp action shots on an f/4 lens wide open and therefore the 16-35mm will do you for most situations. </p>

<p>I can vouch for the optical quality of the 17-35mm - for landscapes it's brilliant in any conditions and makes me some very pleasing small poster sized prints (say 24" x 36") fit for framing, however, it is a heavy (and fat) lens and weighs around 100 grams more than a 16-35mm which is something to consider if you lug a comprehensive photo bag/pack around with you as those extra grams do add up - something I can attest to.</p>

<p>Only you can decide if extra aperture is worth extra dollars and performance wise I can't see you regretting purchasing a 17-35mm compared to the 16-35mm, however, if you go with the 16-35mm I don't think you will die wondering if you are missing out on a great amount for your requirements.</p>

[Two23]

<p>The question I always ask myself is, what would be the better use of the extra $1,000?</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[paul_droluk]

<p>The overwhelming majority of images shot with wide angle lenses are NOT taken at large apertures. WA lenses are most often used for their coverage, not for shallow DOF or bokeh. If I didn't already own the 17-35, I would likely choose the 16-35 for its slightly wider range and lower weight. That said, the 17-35 is probably my most often used lens.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>The argument that you typically shoot at closed apertures isn't the completely story, though - it's action photography, after all. Not only would f/2.8 permit you higher shutter speeds, but also AF tends to be faster with f/2.8 lenses than it is with f/4 lenses. And that could make possibly enough difference to matter - so, is it possible to ask your friend to use the 16-35VR in the conditions you envision using it, and see how it works out? Quite likely it will do the job admirably, but why not try to make sure first?<br>

<em>(That said, for $1000 difference, I'd take my chances really. Sure that 35mm is long enough for the action shots, though? Sounds still very wide)</em></p>

[robert_stig]

<p>Tamron is going to be releasing the 15-30mm 2.8 VC in two weeks. $1000 and specs that show this one is a performer. Mtf is better than the the 14-24 AFS. </p>

<p>if filters are your thing then it may not be for you. Tgat said there are many who purchased the 14-24 because of the IQ and compromised on using a filer. Mtf is speced better than the 14-24 and tamron themselves said they will surpass (not beat) the legendary 14-24. Something im anxious to see if its true. </p>

<p>A review will be in a short while. U might consider waiting then deciding. There are also many that use a fotodio filter holder and use those large square filters. Cumberso e buts its a work around for top notch IQ and using filters. I most certainly am getting one. I had this uncertainty on which uwa to get and basically none fitted my bil regarding price performace features. It was a push pull situation. Cheers. </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>If you're shooting fast moving people up close in rough terrain you probably want a lens that can take a protective filter to avoid dirt and snow frequently rubbing on your lens. To photograph people with a superwide angle means basically being in the midst of the action and stuff has a tendency to happen in such circumstances. This rules out lenses such as the 14-24/2.8 Nikkor. I also wonder if you really need such a wide lens (16mm etc.) for what you are planning to do, or if a lens like the 24-70/2.8 wouldn't do a better job given its focal range. For the choice between 18-35 AF-S, 16-35 AF-S VR and 17-35 AF-S I guess you can look up lens tests such as photozone and they will reveal what the strengths and weaknesses are, but personally I'd go for the 24-70 for sports photography at close distances, and it is also a lens I use frequently for landscapes.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>no way is the 17-35 worth a $1000 difference, especially with a FF camera which can handle high ISOs. for snow sports i can't see loss of 2.8 being a dealbreaker. the 16-35 should handle corners a bit better too as well as the demands of 24mp. my main concern with using the 16-35, which is calibrated for landscape, for sports would be AF speed. if you can try the 16-35 in demanding conditions and test its focus performance before purchase, that would be ideal. you may be able to find a 17-35 for as low as $1000-$1200 used, but even then, i'm not sure i wouldnt get the 16-35 at that price. the 17-35 is one of Nikon's oldest current zoom designs and probably in need of a refresh.</p>

[confindelmundo]

<p>Yes, Eric is right. I had the same dilem and I did not buy the 17-35 mm /2.8 because there was no refresh for many years for that lens, although in its time it was the best, so I trusted the 16-35 mm was a better option. Indeed I bought the 16-35 mm /4.0, and do not regret it. As for the 14-24 mm, definitly no, because of the filter problem and price, and goes only up to 24 mm. Took more than 1 year to decide. Ups!!! I use the lens mostly for landscapes.</p>

[Ian Rance]

How about the 17-35mm on the used market? I just went

for that option and picked up one for £400 (near new

condition). So far I have been really impressed with it on

my D800.

[5711]

<p>16-35 is the newer lens<br>

17-35 still has better specs.<br>

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff</p>

<p>16-35 has weather sealing, 17-35 has not.<br>

there...your decision has been amde :)</p>

<p>enjoy the 16-35.<br>

it is a great lens.<br>

i trashed mine...don't do that ;)))</p>

[robert_bouknight1]

<p>Sort of joining in here a little late. I have the opportunity to get a 17-35/2.8 used locally. It is on my camera tor trials right now. The lens works well, seems to be in good condition.</p>

<p>The main purpose would be to do photos of my friends (mostly at night), night street photography, and some events, paired with a 70-200 on a 2nd body. Other choices in the appx. $ range would be a 20/1.8 or 18-35G (new), and 16-35VR used. Pretty sure I would rather have the 17-35 over the 18-35, so let's rule that one out. The 20 likely is better optically than any choice here, but it is not as flexible as the zooms.The moving people photo component negates some of the VR value for me, and I think the shorter physical length advantage of the 17-35 vs the 16-35 is as important as the weight disadvantage.</p>

<p>So my question for those of you that have had both the 17-35 and 16-35, which would render people better at more open apertures in the 24-35mm range? So far, I think the 28-70/2.8AFS I have is a little better in the 28-35mm range than the 17-35. I don't have access to a 16-35 to try, maybe I should rent one.</p>