Nikon wide zooms

[chuck]

<p>I am debating between 3 wide angle zooms for D810 after a 10 year break from photography. On used market the 2 2.8 zooms appear relatively similarly priced to the new f/4 zoom. I am primarily concerned with image quality. The choices are 17-35f/2.8 (Had it 10 years ago, it was great, but maybe the general standard of "great" has progressed beyond it in the 10 years), 16-35f/4 VR (I suspect I won't be using VR on this lens all that often), and 14-24f/2.8. (Does that lens take any filter?)<br /> Does anyone have any opinions or recommendations?<br /> Thanks</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The 14-24/2.8 has much better image quality than the 16-35/4, especially in the outer parts of the image at wide to medium apertures. I've never used the 17-35/2.8, but from lens tests it seems the 14-24/2.8 has the edge again in the edges and corners of the frame at some focal lengths. I think the 14-24 is overall an excellent lens, but quite big and heavy. It doesn't take standard filters but there are some oversize filters and a holder made by Lee available.</p>

<p>Personally I use the 20/1.8 now. Lightweight, fast, sharp, almost zero flare / ghosting, 77mm filters, but of course it doesn't zoom. </p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>I am very happy with my 28mm. 1.8 G but it may not be wide enough for you.</p>

<p>-O</p>

[Gup]

<p>I'm still using the 17-35mm and have been for 15 years. It still delivers as it always has. I've been using it with the D800E for 2 years with satisfactory results.</p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I would skip the 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S. It was a great lens 15 years ago and was probably still great when FX bodies were 12MP, e.g. the D3 and D700; i.e. until the end of 2011 or so. On 24MP and 36MP FX bodies, its flaws around 17mm are very obvious.</p>

<p>If you don't need f2.8, my favorite in these days is the affordable 18-35mm AF-S: http://www.photo.net/reviews/nikon-18-35mm-g-review/<br>

That is my go to wide zoom in these days. I also have the 17-35mm/f2.8 and 14-24mm/f2.8, but I rarely use them nowadays. The one I have little experience with is the 16-35mm/f4 AF-S VR, but I understand that it is great from about 18mm and up. It is not at its best at 16mm.</p>

<p>For non zooms, the Sigma 35mm/f1.4 is excellent; it is the only non-Nikon F-mount lens I have: http://www.photo.net/equipment/sigma/35mm-f14/<br>

But keep in mind that it is a heavy lens for a 35mm and clearly has a lot of glass and metal inside.</p>

<p>Otherwise, the various Nikon f1.8 wide angles are usually quite good and are not that expensive. They have more plastic parts and are therefore lighter.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>if i was buying a wide zoom for FX today, i wouldnt sleep on the tamron 15-30/2.8, which got better marks on IQ than the 14-24 from DxO. unless buying lenses is more of a status thing for you, performance metrics should be a primary consideration. at this point, there are many options in FX UWA lenses, some extremely reasonably-priced (like the tokina 16-28 or the nikon 18-35), so i think it sort of depends on shooting style, frequency of use, whether you want to use filters, do you need 2.8 for interiors, etc. the 17-35 would still be a good lens for photojournalism, but for landscape, you'd probably want a more modern lens.</p>

<p>also, the 20/1.8 is obviously not a zoom. neither is the sigma 35/1.4. both offer useful focal ranges for prime shooters, but won't replace zooms, especially those which go considerably wider. if you have room in your bag for a physically larger lens and shoot a lot of WA, than a zoom is probably the way to go. if you dont shoot as much WA, but want an occasional wide shot, a 20mm makes sense. i dont really consider 35mm wide, but im very happy with the results from the siggy 35. however, i dont really shoot much landscape with that. </p>

[lornesunley]

<p>The 14-24 f/2.8 is a terrific lens ... the Lee filter attachment is kind of awkward (and pricey), but if you need to use ND and graduated ND filters they work well.</p>

[john_curlett]

<p>I have the 16-35mm f/4 and am very pleased with it. It is very sharp and the large amount of distortion at 16mm cleans up pretty easily in post-processing.</p>

[Matthew Brennan]

<p>I adore my 17-35/2.8 lens, however, on the D810 the spongy corners are shown up well and truly. Not yet a deal breaker for me as I use it mainly for landscapes with foliated corners and thus can get away with a lot of sins there.</p>

<p>I tried the 16-35/4 on my D700 - I did not like the results (landscape) as much as my 17-35/2.8 </p>

<p>If I do replace the 17-35/2.8 it will be with the 14-24/2.8 and a Lee filter holder and 150mm grads and ND's for the 14-24 (diabolically expensive)</p>

<p>There are often excellent 2nd hand copies of the 14-24 for sale at sharp prices - this is how I would/will buy this lens.</p>

[john_narsuitus]

<p>The 14-24mm f/2.8 is one of the three wide-angle zoom lenses I use and I highly recommend it.</p>

<p>

<div></div>

[allan_jamieson2]

<p><img src="/photo/18023159" alt="" />I"ve quite recently bought the Nikon 16-35mm lens to get ultra wide options in my photography and so far it has been surprisingly good, I am attempting to upload a picture that I took with it early on Thursday morning using it at 16mm combined with a Lee Polariser and Little Stopper filter, it shows the River Clyde in Scotland with a local historic bridge at Milton Lockhart in the Clyde Valley. I'll upload some more fresh pictures taken with it into my workspace here. This image looks pin sharp on my iMac but quite compressed by Photoshop to meet the image sizing requirements on this site. The polariser boosted the fresh spring leaves and the Little Stopper helped to slow the exposure down to about 5 seconds which actually gives a partial reflection in the near foreground even though the water was moving slowly in that area. To get this view I had to walk into the river but it wasn't that deep at this point, worth getting wet for anyway, hope it shows up here. If not check out my workspace on this url:<br /> http://www.photo.net/photo/18023159<br /> I was a bit unsure about getting this lens as I usually prefer primes but kind of limited options in and around 16mm but so far no regrets but I will still keep my Nikon 28mm f1.8g and Zeiss 21mm lenses as I am sure they will be just a bit better than the zoom lens at these focal lengths</p>

[Gup]

<p>I guess in retrospect I have been shooting more panoramic compilations since acquiring the Sigma 35 1.4 and shooting less with the zoom, or any of my zooms for that matter. Here are 5 shots very simply merged in PS.<br>

So, Chuck, lots of choices. Good luck.</p><div></div>

[5711]

<p>i have shot with 17-35,16-35 and 14-24 on a d3 and a d3x.</p>

<p>17-35 on a d3 is fine, on the d3x not so much.<br /> 16-35 on a d3 is really good, on the d3x it is good.<br /> the 14-24 is outstanding..</p>

<p>i would not recomment the 17-35 as it does not have weather protection although<br /> it has outstanding center performance.<br /> i found the corners to be not so good on the d3x.</p>

<p>the 16-35 is a bit soft in corners but for that you want a tilt shift anways.<br /> softness can be seen on a d3 also..i found it to be a big improvement over what i had, but i wasnt too pleased with it..<br>

when shot at around f5 or f5.6 up to f8 it is amazingly good. <br>

architecture was...well..quite okay id say.<br>

i wasn't too happy with it to be honest..</p>

<p>do you have 77mm filters?<br /> go for the 16-35</p>

<p>want to invest, get the 14-24 and buy filters. you will not regret that.<br>

expensive, but great.</p>

<p>the vr on the 16-35 is great, btw</p>

<p>tamron or tokina just recently released a ..idk..15-30? anyone got some experience with that one?</p>

[5711]

<p>spent some time reading and searching stuff.<br>

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/4651324149/tamron-15-30-f2-8-vs-nikon-14-24-f2-8-shootout</p>

<p>opinions please.<br>

do you know any other tests?<br>

thanks</p>

[5711]

<p>i made a seperate post to discuss the tamron 15-35</p>

[StefDevos]

<p>(Influenced by reviews and on-line lens ratings like dxomark), I recently changed from 17-35 f2.8 to 16-35 f4, without loosing money on the transaction. The 16-35 is indeed *slightly* sharper in the corners, but i wouldn't call it an upgrade : the 17-35 had better handling (more compact) and less distortion. </p>

[mike_halliwell]

<blockquote>

<p>tamron 15-35</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Wow Norbert, another new Tamron FX 2.8 wide zoom? They've managed to add another 5mm at the long end! Wicked..:-)</p>

<p>I wonder if anything new is going to come from the Nikon stable in this range with VR @ 2.8?</p>