Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


Nikon 16-35 f4 any good on D800


Hi All, I have been testing with second hand nikon 17-35 F2.8 for £785 and found very happy with it. I think F2.8 is worth buy as its bright on my screen for focus at dim light. I found F2.8 at 17mm, 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm are sharp and less distortion. Stopping down increase sharpness till F16. With Landscape work I found F11 is enough for DOF at 17mm 20mm 24mm but use F16 at 28mm 35mm also I found 35mm is sharp, more likely shaper then 16-35VR at 35mm. This lens is very solid and compact then 16-35 VR. Photos will be send later

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

thewilliam e2
6 4.9k
8 Dec 2012 12:05AM
Never assume that a new lens is going to be better than an old design.

Sometimes, when a brilliant designer gets it right, the lens gets no more than a few tweaks for the next century as with Dr Rudolf and the Zeiss Planar that he designed in 1896. Nikon has a few of these classics and many photographers would put the 17-35 in that category. Take a look at Ken Rockwell's top 10 Nikon lenses. I'd agree with many of his choices.
dandeakin e2
7 207 3 England
8 Dec 2012 12:08PM
I've twice tried to buy a second hand 17-35 as I thought it would be the perfect wide angle for me. Both times when I tested them they were noticeably less sharp than my sigma 20mm prime (which was abit of a surprise). It may have been that both were poor copies, but it put me off getting one. I think I'd go for the 16-35 when the time comes to change from the 20mm. It's a shame as I would much prefer to have a f2.8 wide angle than a f4VR
11 Dec 2012 8:47AM

Quote:
does not the D600 and D800 have inbuilt viewfinder covers, like the D700? Something that's vital for long exposures on the D700.


The D800 definitely does.
I agree about remembering to use the viewfinder cover (or a hand held lens cap behind the viewfinder) to get the best exposures when your face is not close to the viewfinder.
User_Removed 5 4.6k 1 Scotland
19 Dec 2012 3:34PM
Having finally persuaded myself that fabricating a slip-on filter holder for the 14-24mm Nikkor is not beyond my limited handcraft skills, I bought one (s/h) on eBay yesterday.

I have now placed my 16-35mm Nikkor on eBay with a start price of 99p and no reserve so there may be a bargain to be had (although, obviously, it would be nice if I could get enough to cover the purchase of the wider lens).

ePz don't like direct links to eBay items on the Forum but anyone interested in the 16-35mm lens will find it on eBay by searching for Changing9

.
User_Removed 5 4.6k 1 Scotland
27 Dec 2012 7:55PM
...and now I have to admit defeat!!!!

Having tried with a notable lack of success, to "build my own", I have now given up and invested in a Lee dedicated holder for the 14-24mm Nikkor. Bloody thing cost nearly half as much as the lens!!!
Hi all, whilst ago, I mentioned I bought 17-35 F2.8 in mint- condition boxed and very happy with this lens, bought for £789 from Ffordes, I have some copies to show you in ePHOTOzine shortly. I found link:-http://www.kolarivision.com/lenshotspot.html You all can see that nikkor lenses reports on two column row one in "Good Performers" and "Poor Performers", there is 16-35 VR is in poor side!! 17-35 F2.8 in Good side. That interesting? Recently I saw one of retailer sells 16-35 VR in second hand section already after new model released not long ago!. I can see 17-35 F2.8 are very very rare on second hand markets or £1450 new or £1000 on grey importer. Cheers
Nick_w e2
7 4.1k 99 England
2 Jan 2013 5:35PM

Quote:Hi all, whilst ago, I mentioned I bought 17-35 F2.8 in mint- condition boxed and very happy with this lens, bought for £789 from Ffordes, I have some copies to show you in ePHOTOzine shortly. I found link:-http://www.kolarivision.com/lenshotspot.html You all can see that nikkor lenses reports on two column row one in "Good Performers" and "Poor Performers", there is 16-35 VR is in poor side!! 17-35 F2.8 in Good side. That interesting? Recently I saw one of retailer sells 16-35 VR in second hand section already after new model released not long ago!. I can see 17-35 F2.8 are very very rare on second hand markets or £1450 new or £1000 on grey importer. Cheers

Yes its terrible Wink
Nick_w e2
7 4.1k 99 England
4 Jan 2013 8:19AM
David Just looked at the link. Both you and I should really read it. The link refers to the use of the lens for infra red converted cameras - in no way does it say either the 16-35, or 17-35 is a poor lens for conventional photography.

What is interesting about the review is I do have an IR converted camera, and there is one lens on there listed as good, but for me is terrible for a hot spot (Sigma 105).
4 Jan 2013 7:57PM

Quote: - in no way does it say either the 16-35, or 17-35 is a poor lens for conventional photography.


According to Nikon the f4 at f4 is optically quite a bit better than the f2.8 at f2 .8 Smile
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/list.htm#zoom
Hi lenShepheard, I have tested at F2.8 at 17mm 20mm 24mm and 35mm, all looks sharp however I donít use F2.8 for landscape work but F2.8 gives me better brightness in my viewfinder then with F4 when to focus. I think both lenses are good but in difference ways. I have very good image at F11 or F14 at 17mm also even at 35mm, I think 17-35 F2.8 at 35mm is better then 16-35VR at 35mm. Bear the mind that 17-35mm F2.8 have less distortion then 16-35 VR which give me less work on post processing. I like VR really but not necessary on tripod work or if use hand held you need adjustment accordantly with shutter speed and focal length. If I want slow shutter speed then I will use tripod anyway, I have beautiful sharp images with 17-35 F2.8 hand held with my D800. Images will be upload to view soon, I will let you knowWink
I have search second hand 17-35 F2.8, very rare on market propely around £789 to £1300, but found 16-35 VR now in second hand market already for £600.

I think its personal tastes and how you to photography?

Hi Nick_w, yes I agreed with you, I like IR so my lens will do job!, I must admit that I donít like sigma lenses, I have use before but one of lens sigma 10-20 F4.5 is brilliant lens only use between F9 to F11 that all with my D7000. I find 17-35 F2.8 is much better overall then 10-20.

Cheers DavidNikonD800
Nick_w e2
7 4.1k 99 England
4 Jan 2013 11:23PM

Quote:Bear the mind that 17-35mm F2.8 have less distortion then 16-35 VR which give me less work on post processing.


Honestly it's not an issue, set Lightroom up to apply the Lens correction on import, and you have nothing to worry about (that will apply for both lenses, and take exactly the same time). There is so much rubbish around the net with people wanting to find fault, both lenses are excellent landscape lenses.
Watch Out wow http://nikonrumors.com/2013/01/09/nikon-patents-for-16-35mm-f2-8-vr-lens-dual-lens-hood.aspx/
I think it will cost lots of money and more likely that Lee filters wont fit on front ?????? See what is happen when release due!!!!!! I am getting photos shortly and upload images by 17-35 F2.8 Cheers
10 Jan 2013 10:04AM

Quote: Bear the mind that 17-35mm F2.8 have less distortion then 16-35 VR

It does at 16/17mm. By film standards either lens has strong distortion at the wide end, and very different distortion at other zoom settings.
With recent Nikon bodies there is an option to save a duplicate file with distortion removed, perspective control applied or the horizon levelled, as an alternative way of working.
See my album for Test nikon 17-35 F2.8 normal and crop

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.