What is a good, affordable Nikon F or Z, wide-angle, constant aper., zoom lens for Full Frame Cam.?

[iKokomo]

I am looking for an affordable wide-angle, constant aperture, zoom lens for my Nikon Z6. I have the FTZ adapter. I am looking for the following in the lens:

 

1. Constant Aperture (2.8 or 4)

2. Ability to autofocus with FTZ (not a Screw drive autofocus)

3. Not too expensive (I am a portrait photographer, but I would love to play around with architecture and landscape photos, so the quality does not have to be amazing.)

 

Thank you for your help!

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

It depends on what you consider affordable. I don't know about its auto focus attributes with the mount, but the Nikon 17-35, is to my tastes, a wonderful lens though it is big and heavy. It is continuous f 2.8 and you can get them in "bargain" condition at KEH (no affiliation with me) for under $500 just looking at their website. Likewise the pro 24-70. You have to be comfortable for their definition of "bargain". It could be worn but any defect in it will not effect image quality. You might spend a minute and check it out there. New versions of these seem to be selling around $2000.

[Hector Javkin]

Although my own preferences in Nikon F wides are at focal lengths of 20 and 28mm (both f/1.8) the 24mm f/1.8 is a lovely modern lens at a good price.

[Dieter Schaefer]

With Z-mount: Nikon 14-30/4S. If F-mount is needed, the Tamron 15-30/2.8 (either the newer G2 but the older one is fine too) - although large and heavy and with a bulbous front-element but optically excellent. I owned the Nikon 16-35/4 - but it is optically no match for the Tamron - and neither is the Nikon 17-35/2.8. Another excellent option is the Tokina Opera 16-28/2.8.

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

The Nikon 17-35 is a bit older lens. I don't know how optically superior the Tampon is, I have to take your word for it, but the 17-35 had an optical quality that I really like. Even better than the Nikon 17-24 f2.8 which is sharper but not as nice to my eye. The 17-35 doesn't have Image stabilization and the Tampon does, but it does have an aperture ring which the Tampon doesn't. There's no big advantage to a stabilized lens at that wide angle unless in really extreme situations requiring very low shutter speeds. But check it all out for yourself OP. Dieter shoots more of those types of lenses then I do these days so, I'm sure he knows of which he speaks. I'm shooting Fuji these days and mostly primes.

[q.g._de_bakker]

For me, the Nikon 16-35 mm is the better lens, compared to both 17-35 Nikkor and the Tamron mentioned. With opinions varying that much, the difference between the three will probably be very small.

 

I tend to use a Sigma f/4.5-5.6 12-24 mm instead. Not fast, and not constant aperture. But if i want ultra wide, 12 mm beats 16 or 17 mm. And 24 mm long end nicely matches the wide end of the next zoom in the kit bag.

[Dieter Schaefer]

Dieter shoots more of those types of lenses then I do these days so, I'm sure he knows of which he speaks.

Thank you! I tend to only chip in when I have personal experience with lenses as online lens tests and lens reviews need to be taken with a grain of salt - though personal experience suffers from the same drawback: usually a sample of one. I owned and quite liked the Nikon 16-35/4 VR - it was the lens that got me to move to FX. VR was important to me - which is why I didn't consider the 17-35/2.8. In only verified what I had seen online about their performance differences - which manifested themselves in the 17-35 being less sharp outside the center region. Performance nearly matched when the 17-35/2.8 was stopped down one step more than the 16-35. Almost the same holds true for the Tamron 15-30/2.8 to Nikon 16-35/4 comparison - they perform about equal when the Nikon is stopped down one more stop compared to the Tamron. I recently sold the Nikon 16-35 but kept the Tamron 15-30 (despite the fact that I can't use regular filters on the Tamron and that I am no friend of these bulbous front elements). What I like most about the Tamron is the consistency of its performance across the focal length range; the Nikon 16-35 markedly drops off at focal lengths beyond 30mm.

[JDMvW]

There are F-mount constant-aperture tele zooms from outfits like Vivitar Series I and such like -- some of which are good

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

I've only used the 17-35 which is just a generation behind there other 2 "pro" glass I had from Nikon at the time of the D700 which was the 24-70 and the 70-200 2.8 2nd version. Both the newer lenses had, I forget what they called it, Nano something?? on the lenses and were quite sharp and the VR was handy on the 70-200. But using the 17-35 on the FF D700 gave me some of my favorite images I ever got in terms what was coming out of that camera. But all those are honking heavy lenses and I remember doing a couple of weddings with 2 Nikon DSLRs, 24-70 on one body and the 70-200 on another with a batter pack etc. Sheesh. I still have all 3 of those bricks, and I even got an adaptor to try the 17-35 on my Fuji, but it didn't really work. I probably should sell off all that kit.