Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Best Wide angle option for Nikon full frame

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

photofrenzy
1 Nov 2012 - 12:19 AM

Go Nikkor 16-35 f4 VR N lens ultra sharp Superb contrast and vibrant colours.

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
1 Nov 2012 - 12:19 AM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

LenShepherd
LenShepherd e2 Member 62434 forum postsLenShepherd vcard United Kingdom
1 Nov 2012 - 7:52 AM


Quote: Go Nikkor 16-35 f4 VR N lens ultra sharp Superb contrast and vibrant colours.

As an owner of this lens (and the 24-70) I would not describe the 16-35 as ultra sharp at 16mm f4 wide open.
Nikon seem to agree with me Smile http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/zoom/widezoom/af-s_nikkor16-35mmf_4d_ed_vr/...
As I indicated in my earlier reply there are more optically first class FX wide angle options shooting at f8-11 than shooting at f2.8-f4.

Nick_w
Nick_w e2 Member 73818 forum postsNick_w vcard England99 Constructive Critique Points
1 Nov 2012 - 11:35 AM

But why would anyone buy a wide angle zoom Len to use it at the worst possible combination (I.e widest setting, wide open) the 16-35 is aimed at Landscape photographers, where even at 16mm its a good performer stopped down, beconing excellent in the mid focal length range. Even the 14-24 isn't steller wide open at 14mm (and thats widely regarded as one of the best lenses ever made)

photofrenzy
1 Nov 2012 - 11:23 PM


Quote: Go Nikkor 16-35 f4 VR N lens ultra sharp Superb contrast and vibrant colours.
As an owner of this lens (and the 24-70) I would not describe the 16-35 as ultra sharp at 16mm f4 wide open.
Nikon seem to agree with me Smile http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/zoom/widezoom/af-s_nikkor16-35mmf_4d_ed_vr/...
As I indicated in my earlier reply there are more optically first class FX wide angle options shooting at f8-11 than shooting at f2.8-f4.

I Never said it was an ultrasharp lens at F4. At F11 which is the aperture that would most commomly be used on the 16-35 f4 vr its as sharp as the 24-70 @ f11. Ok the 24-70 is aparently sharp wide open @ f2.8 but stop that lens down to f4 and you will find that there is no diference in image quality between the two lenses . Incidently the 24-70 isnt as sharp as its made out to be at 24mm @ f2.8 but who cares both lenses offer fantastic image quality as for contrast the 16-35 is far superior than the 24-70.

i dont think its a question of Nikon agreeing with you i think its more of you agreeing with Nikons statement which incidently are not totaly correct all the time

As a matter of opinion i stand by my statement the Nikkor 16-35mm is ultra sharp . Try taking your 24-70 out in low light Hand Held and compare it to the 16-35 VR and see which one is sharpest. When the sun gets low the 24-70 goes back in the bag .

Last Modified By photofrenzy at 1 Nov 2012 - 11:24 PM
779HOB
779HOB  2999 forum posts United Kingdom
1 Nov 2012 - 11:28 PM

I use a Nikon 17-35mm - I think the 16-35 is the new version. I like the 17-35 it's been dropped, banged and drenched and takes it all in it's stride. Soft on the edges at less than f8 maybe but I don't mind that. My last upload here was taken with it at 17mm, f2.8, 1000 ISO.

Last Modified By 779HOB at 1 Nov 2012 - 11:31 PM
photofrenzy
3 Nov 2012 - 2:48 PM


Quote: I use a Nikon 17-35mm - I think the 16-35 is the new version. I like the 17-35 it's been dropped, banged and drenched and takes it all in it's stride. Soft on the edges at less than f8 maybe but I don't mind that. My last upload here was taken with it at 17mm, f2.8, 1000 ISO.

That is a cracking lens too, It may be the older D type lens but boy its image quality is wonderfull and its built like a tank, Great lens Your right its the older of the two but still a great wide angle lens and still very much in demand prices are still high for this lens.Wink

annettep38
annettep38 e2 Member 3186 forum postsannettep38 vcard France30 Constructive Critique Points
3 Nov 2012 - 10:40 PM

I have bought htis summer after a long discussion here the 14-24. It is a bit bulky in the bag but fantastic. Apart from a visible distortion which is pretty easy to correct at 14-16mm it is tack sharp, sharper than my 20mm of which I own the very best MF version.. Yes, hard to admit but I have never looked at it again.
there is one alternative, which I use if I'm a bit nervous about the 14-24 cause it is a Land rover meeting or I want to go for a long walk nad have already lots to carry. It is an 18 mm Nikkor, the MF version. it is not blurry like the AF version and distortion free. Only the vignetting is quite bad but I concocted a Lightroom preset for it.
the samyang produces horrible distortion I tried it and backed off.

mixipix
mixipix  1 Australia
15 Nov 2012 - 6:43 AM

Adding onto your question Gravelle, I'm looking at upgrading my wide-angle lens collection (my 17-35 f2.8 Nikkor AF-S has just about carked it after a 12 year career and many bounces off the floor). I also have a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 which will suffice at the long end of a FX body. I'm looking more and more at the new Nikon D600 alongside my venerable Nikon D2Xs (I have a photojournalistic b/g). After 40 odd years of lugging gear around including MF as a profession I'm looking at something a little lighter. Still don't think that mirrorless or M4/3rds are there yet. Hence the D600.

But I'd love to get away from all those heavy AF-S VR wide zooms. Why do we need VR of a FF 20 mm lens @800 iso? With 1.5 magnification on DX I might be able to understand the thinking of VR and certainly on longer lenses it's a godsend, but finally, where back to (my reality....35mm Hooray!). In film days it was Fuji Velvia rated at 32asa and all lenses were fixed, 24mm being the widest. If I couldn't hold a camera with 24mm steady at say 1/15th I'd give the game away.

So..... sorry for that little rant about the olden days, but what are the AF qualities of the smaller prime lenses like the 24mm F2.8 and the 35mm f2 like? Are the moderately quick? Are they fully functional with metering. Nikon don't mention much about them in their brochure, probably pushing their VR range. I know that they are quite long in the tooth design wise but if I'm going for a light weight FX camera, why bog it down with heavy lenses. And these lenses are light and small. Did you know that the two lenses I just mentioned weigh less combined than any of those wide angle AF-S VR zoom lenses?

edtaylor
edtaylor  3104 forum posts United Kingdom
17 Nov 2012 - 8:45 AM

I have the Nikon 14-24 on my D800. they are a suburb combination.for-comment.jpg

gavrelle
gavrelle  230 forum posts England
17 Nov 2012 - 9:24 PM

Well as a follow up. I decided to opt for a good second hand 17-35mm. I like lens that are solid and i really don t need VR!!!!. i was seriously after the 16-35 but they are extremely hard to find in the uk, they just arent coming into the country. In the end i am happy with my choice, there are a lot of quality lens out there and its more down to how i use it!! Nice to hear the opinions, the diversity of them proves thatthere is no right answer!!

thewilliam
17 Nov 2012 - 11:37 PM

This is a lens you'll want to keep!

mixipix
mixipix  1 Australia
18 Nov 2012 - 2:12 AM

Just to let you know that the 17-35mm f 2.8 is certainly solid and very robust but I must let you know that they are quite heavy and you know that you've been carrying one around at the end of a long day. I was also surprised at it's low rating in the DXO lenses testing scorecard. I honestly thought that they were a more standout lens than it's score represented. I think that they are ideal for photojournalism if thats your bent, not sure if it's the one for landscaping, still life,portrait etc.

gavrelle
gavrelle  230 forum posts England
18 Nov 2012 - 9:39 AM

We will see!! I wanted a good allrounder!!. I think much of these bench tests only say so much, real life tells a more accurate story.

mixipix
mixipix  1 Australia
18 Nov 2012 - 10:37 AM

It's a good all rounder, a true workhorse of a lens

KNS
KNS  5106 forum posts United Kingdom2 Constructive Critique Points
18 Nov 2012 - 12:03 PM

14-24 is an awesome lens...remember FX does not incorporate a crop factor - how wide do you want to go Smile

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.