Wide angle zoom for D800

[jon_savage]

<p>I’ve recently bought a used D800 and now have the pleasure of choosing a wide angle zoom for it. Up till now I used a D7100 and the Nikon 10-24.</p>

<p>I could stretch to £800. First I thought the Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR (£650-700 used but saving doesn’t look good against £800 new). But reviews seem quite mixed on the optical quality ranging from the best to average and I'm hessitating.</p>

<p>I just wondered what the Nikon forum thought. There's the new Tamron (£800) and the Tokina (£670) 2.8's. The downside would be the extra for a filter kit. Or maybe the new 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G at £500. I see that gets very good reviews.</p>

<p>2.8 is only needed for astrophotography landscape so that might be addressed with a Samyang 14/2.8 to compliment a more practical and economical zoom, especially if one only goes to 18mm.</p>

<p>Fixed aperture is not important and size/weight possibly less important (unless your comments suggest I should be concerned!) than optical quality and budget.</p>

<p>Thanks for your help</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Nikon's 16-35mm/f4 AF-S VR is supposed to be very good once you move away from the widest 2mm or so, i.e. it is fine from 18-35mm, but I don't have much personal experience with that lens. The one I like a lot is the 18-35mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S (without VR). It is good from end to end with some distortion that is typical for wide-angle zoom lenses. It is also less expensive and lighter, which means it has a plastic barrel and more plastic parts. To me, that is not an issue (in fact, to me that is a plus for a small lens because it is lighter), but some people prefer a metal barrel and the weight that comes along with it.</p>

<p>However, for those who need f2.8, they need to find an alternative.</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Over the decades, I have only owned two lenses for my Nikons that were not Nikon lenses. One at the start, which I replaced as soon as I could afford to, the second, a recent gift. I have had no reason to regret my choices, even when it was necessary to wait and save money to buy the better lens. I have the 18-35 referenced in your post, and am very satisfied with it. It is usually on one or the other of my camera bodies. A fun lens.</p>

[photo_galleries]

<p>You may have to wait to find one that is within your budget or maybe settle for a well-used sample or maybe even stretch your budget (if possible), but assuming that size and weight are non-issues, then what you really want is the now 20-yr-old standard of WA zooms -- the Nikon 17-35/2.8.</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>The best ever, wide angle Zoom lens ever made by Nikon, the AF-S 17-35/2.8 ED. I using this lens since long long time, all ready owned at the film era and working wonderful, producing the sharpest image I ever tried with other wide angle lenses, in the same range. If I really wanted a 100 percent sharp shots, I cary the 17-35/2.8 all the time. It is permanently attached to the D3s now. The next is a 24-70/2.8ED (NO VR ) super sharp too, on the D4. Other then that, I mostly using prime lenses, believe it or not, my favorite is the Nikon Nikkor-Q or Q.C. (IA ed ) Nothing can beet the 17-35/2.8. And it is a thru lens, with aperture ring. NO PLASTIC. It is a legend. It is not cheep, but, it is a life time lens.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Actually I own three Nikon wide-angle zooms: the 14-24mm/f2.8 AF-S, the 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S, and the 18-35mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S. I use the 14-24 infrequently because it is too wide for me in most situations, and I don't like the bulging front element under harsh environments.</p>

<p>I used to like the 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S a lot, until I tried it on the 24MP D3X back in 2009. The 17mm end now appears soft on 24MP and 36MP FX DSLRs: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00aU7B<br>

Keep in mind that my test images in the thread above are stopped down to f8 @ 17mm, and the corners are still soft. Once again if you can avoid the widest couple of mm, maybe it is still ok. IMO the 17-35mm/f2.8 is one lens Nikon really needs to update. However, after introducing the 16-35mm/f4 and 18-35mm AF-S in the last 5 years, maybe Nikon wants to wait another year or two.</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Hi Shun. I used to own the 14-24/2.8, but after my first Rocky Mountain trip I sold the lens. The idea, I all ready get the 17mm up, so I don't need the 24mm. The 14-24mm was used on the 14mm range all the time, but I strangled with the big mass of the lens and decided, to sell it and replace it with the 14/2.8ED prime. Yes, yes the 14-24 better at 14mm. I would prefer a new 14mm, or even a new 13mm prime, which is slightly smaller or shorter then the 14-24 zoom. I never noticed the corner softness on my 16MP camera and even then, I don't really care of that too. Most of the time I using max f/8 or smaller aperture anyway. I never blown up my images bigger then 13x19, most of the time even smaller print size I prefer. <br /> I really jealous about Canon, the new 11-24 zoom. I checked out, and it is phenomenal. If I'm not living on retirement pension, I would buy a FF Canon body and this Canon lens. To bad, Nikon is to lazy on this focal length.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>I find a mid-range zoom more useful on a full frame camera than wide angle. Perhaps that may be my style rather than any solid reason. I have a 28-70/2.8, but would definitely consider the 24-70/4 lens for price and footprint. I have a 17-35/2.8 which was a workhorse on a D2x, but not used much these days.</p>

<p>Neither of my old (film) lenses does really well with a high resolution digital camera. I could use them on my Sony A7Rii, but have switched to prime lenses for better image quality and a considerable size advantage. (I also swap lenses a lot more, but there's no mirror to stir up dust.) I suspect a lot of D800/D810 users will undergo the same experience.</p>

[clive_murray_white]

<p>Hi, of course it depends on what you need the lens for, I automatically thought that I needed a wide zoom for my D800, wider than the 24mm on my mid range zoom, but my genuine use for it is very limited - so I bought a used Sigma 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 ex dg if, OK, very sharp most of the time but had horrible lens flare whenever it got tangled up with any kind of light source. I sold it. </p>

<p>Still needing something wider than 24mm I got an AF Nikkor 20mm 2.8D and am completely happy with it</p>

[allan_jamieson2]

<p>I was in much the same situation earlier this year trying to get an ultrawide lens for my D800, with the widest lens that I owned being a Zeiss 21mm. I tried a new Samyang 14mm lens from Amazon UK which was a spectacular failure, obviously a defective lens which was only sharp in the very centre of the image. Obviously didn't expect Zeiss quality for the much less expensive price but a lens like that should never have escaped the factory! Most people are luckier with this lens but quality control is obviously optional in that factory. Next option was the Nikon 16-35mm lens, I know that the 14-24mm lens is better optically but it makes filter usage a much more expensive option. Like you I read the many reviews on the 16-35mm lens and found some people saying superb and others that it was very poor. Obviously some sample variation coming into play again but I persevered and found one listed as near mint with Ffordes in the UK for a reasonable price. So I contacted them and asked them if they would take some photos with that lens on a D800 at 16mm and f8. They did that for me and I examined the images carefully and couldn't find anything to fault them at all, nice and sharp even to the edges unlike that Samyang 14mm lens. On that basis I bought the lens and have used it mainly at the wider end since then and found it to be extremely good.</p>

<p>So, if you have the same concerns that I have you could talk to Ffordes and ask them to do something similar for you too. Currently their website is showing three 16-35mm lenses for sale for the same price of £649 each.<br>

http://www.ffordes.com/category/Lenses/Nikon/AF/Nikon/Others</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>First I thought the Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR...<br>

Nikon's 16-35mm/f4 AF-S VR is supposed to be very good once you move away from the widest 2mm or so, i.e. it is fine from 18-35mm</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I do have the 16-35/4 VR and am very happy with it (on a D810). It's actually weakest towards the longest focal length, and at 16mm shows quite some (correctable) barrel distortion. Purchased mine long before the Tamron 15-30 VC appeared - which isn't an option for me since I stay away from lenses with bulging front elements that can't be protected with a filter. If 18mm is wide enough, then the already mentioned AF-S 18-35 is a very good choice.</p>

[kk_hui]

<p>Jon,<br>

After much research I ended up with Tokina AT-X 16-28 PRO FX for use with my D800 and don't look back. It's a very sharp lens with relatively low distortion. Yes it's heavy at 950g but excellent built.</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Our eyes do not normally "see" what our wide angle lenses will capture, once you get past 40 or so mm. Early 35mm days, the thought process was that 50 was "normal". Very wide lenses are specialized tools that requires extra effort and thought to use effectively. It isn't, in my opinion, about "getting everything" in the image, but working close with far beyond, that or getting results in constrained space. I periodically pull up EXIF data to review focal length usage. Nikon USA has a focal length lens comparator tool that is worth checking before you buy -- either extreme wide or tele.</p>

[robert_bouknight1]

<p>The older 20-35/2.8 AFD I have is "plenty good enough" on my D810. I like it better than the 17-35/2.8 that I borrowed from a friend for a while, but I think that particular 17-35 was not quite right. The 20-35 is smaller than the 17-35, also, which is nice.</p>

<p>I had the small Tokina 20-35/3.5-4.5AF that I thought was better than the (early) Nikon 18-35/3.5-4.5D when I tried both. Both of the examples that I had were not very good wide open, but the Tokina was better overall. Both were small and nicely portable. The Nikon 20-35/2.8 I have now is much better than either of those. </p>

<p>I have not tried the 16-35/4 AFS VR, but I am sure it is good, but larger than the 20-35 I have. I keep meaning to borrow the one another friend has to compare to the 20-35.</p>

<p>I also toy with the idea of just getting a 24/1.8G (smaller, lighter, sharper, faster), or the combination of a 20 & 25. I don't mind big lenses when I am actively shooting something, but don't like them when just casually carrying the camera around.</p>

<p> </p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>+1 Sandy</p>

[mark_miranda2]

<p>Another vote for the Nikkor 20-35/2.8 AF-D. I know it's an older lens, but...internal focusing, sharp, great color, very clean images, (I find I have to do very little in post) pretty quick, relatively quiet, at least mine is. I even like the feel of the manual focusing mode. Rock solid build. It's parked on my D800, and on occasion I pop it on my F100. Excellent combination on both. </p>

 

[jon_savage]

<p>Thanks for the responses. I guess one doesn't stand out as a clear winner. So in the end I went for the Nikon 16-35 F4 VR. Not too big (but big enough) and takes my existing filters. I tred it carefully in the shop and the sample appeared very good all round so I took a deep breath and parted with a few more pounds than I planned!</p>

<p>It actually stopped raining and the sky had the odd hole in the clouds today so I had a chance to take it outside. Nothing interesting to see but all looks OK.</p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Jon, congratulations on your new lens. The attached image is very good too. I noticed that you captured it @ 16mm. How is corner quality at the widest setting?</p>

[Albins images]

I tried my older and trusted DX 12-24/4.0 on my D800 again this

weekend. In fact, that works well, from 17mm onwards to 24mm!

It has served me well on D200/D300, after I became used to it's

size (coming from the small 52mm frontlense AI(S) primes.. now

using 24-70/2.8...).

 

 

There's my wide-angle zoom for the time being!

And ready to combine with a future D500.. :-P

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>I tried my older and trusted DX 12-24/4.0 on my D800 again this weekend. In fact, that works well, from 17mm onwards to 24mm!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>@ 24mm, the 12-24mm/f4 DX AF-S can be quite good on the D800, not so much when it is wider.</p>

<p>From 17, 18mm, the 12-24mm DX may appear to be able to cover the entire FX frame on the D800, because the corner vignetting is gone. However, image quality is terrible into the corners and along the edges until you zoom farther towards 24mm. I would verify the quality at different focal lengths before you depend on using that DX lens on FX.</p>

[andylynn]

I have the Tokina. When I was looking I found a crazy good under $500 deal on it that made the choice easy. It does very,

very well in real estate shooting.

[jon_savage]

<p>Shun, I looked throuigh the images I took and there were only a couple at 16mm and f4. And only one with useful image in the corners. So appologies in advance for the dull subject but it may give some indication of the corner performance - see attached straight from camera jpeg.</p>

<p>Having looked extra close in the corners there is some distortion right in the very corner when wide open (possibly top right the worst). But it's very sharp in the majority of the frame.</p>

[jon_savage]

<p>photo...</p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Thanks Jon. Don't mean to say anything discouraging about your shiny new lens, but as I had pointed out earlier, according to sources such as photozone.de and Bjorn Rorslett, the 16-35mm/f4 is a bit weak on the widest end. Therefore, I am curious about your observation.</p>

<p>I don't have that particular lens anyway, but I also don't use 16mm very often.</p>

[jon_savage]

<p>Shun,<br>

I will check it out more carefully when I get the chance. It is without doubt impressively sharp in the main area of the lens. But the corners are distorted and soft at the wider end. But having looked through many of my photos with my old DX wide angles (the Nikon 10-24 on a D7100 and before that the Tamron 10-24 on a D300s) I noticed I rarely had much of interest in the corners in what I took so it's hard to really compare.</p>

<p>Simple distortion I can live with but too much blur/softness beyong the extreme corners might be an issue for me, that was why I went from the Tamron to the Nikon before. I guess if it appears no better than the Nikon 10-24 on my D7100 I'll change it.</p>