Nikon D800 wide angle options

Nick_w (Critique Team)

5

3 Feb 2013 - 9:16 PM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

Phil it's fine, it's a great lens. There's distortion at 16mm, but it's very easy to correct (let Lightroom do it automatically on import). Between 20-28mm it's very very sharp, best stopped down a bit (F5.6-F16).

Helpful Post!

katieb (e2 Member)

8

3 Feb 2013 - 9:21 PM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

Hi Phil the 16-35 is fine with the D800 for an example see my last upload. Suffers a bit from chromatic aberration in certain situations but that is easily sorted in LR. As above agree very sharp between 20-28mm.

Helpful Post!

mikehit (e2 Member)

3

3 Feb 2013 - 9:44 PM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

Yes it is man enough for the job. If you like the 16-35 on your current body, you will like the 16-35 on the D800. In fact the D800 may produce better photos with the same lens (if the other sensor is limiting performance in some ways). The advantage of the D800 is that its greater resolution my make better use of a lens upgrade whenyou get round to it.
In your shoes I would look at the D800 for other reasons - better high ISO performance, improvements in other functionalities.

Helpful Post!

User_Removed

3

3 Feb 2013 - 10:37 PM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

Phil,

When I swapped from the DX D300 to the FX D3s, I had to ditch the excellent Sigma 10-20mm lens and invested in a Nikkor 16-35mm f/4. I chose this lens over the 14-24mm f/2,8 for the very reason that it has a filter thread. I continued using it when I "downgraded" from the D3s to the D800.

It is a great lens.

Eventually, a month or so ago, I irrationally persuaded myself (I'm like that! ) that I really did want the 14-24mm even though it meant spending half as much again on a Lee filter adaptor and a set of filters for it. I love the 14-24mm but that does not detract from my earlier positive experience of the 16-35mm f/4.

I would suggest that, like me, you buy a second-hand one. That way, if you decide to go for the 14-24mm at a later date (again second-hand), then you will get back your initial investment on the 16-35mm without difficulty.

Buying and selling your lenses second-hand on eBay really is the way to make your hobby financially painless. (a relative term, of course)

.

Have fun, whichever route you take.

Helpful Post!

Graysta (e2 Member)

8

4 Feb 2013 - 6:58 AM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

Yep I use it as well on the D800 and the D3.
Like Leftforum I had to make the transition from the much loved 10-20 sigma.

Helpful Post!

LenShepherd (e2 Member)

5

4 Feb 2013 - 8:29 AM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

1

Maybe it depends on what you mean by "man enough for the job".
As an owner of the D800, the 14-24 and the 16-35 my answer is yes, with the proviso it may be wise to stop down one stop at 16mm.
Digressing slightly image resolution, which is what we are interested in, is made up of lens resolution( including the corners) and sensor resolution.
The D800 has significantly more resolution than the 12 MP sensors most of us had before.
Using the analogy from the "other thread" the D800, like the expert guitarist, gets more image resolution using any lens than using it on a lower MP cameras. In this sense "you cannot go wrong" using any wide angle FX lens.
All lenses of f4 and faster are optically extremely good by f8 and f11, as the ephotozine lens tests confirm.
On the other hand any wide-angle prime or zoom is relatively poor in the corners wide open. You can get an idea of how relatively poor in the corners by looking at the Nikon wide-open MTF at http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/index.htm
In the MTF the 16-35 corners at f4 16mm are not as good as the 14-24 at f2 .8 14mm. In my usage at f4 shooting wide-angle the 14-24 provides the best quality. By f8 I find it difficult to tell the difference.
At the "long" end of the zoom range the MTF indication and my usage is either lens is about equal at f4.
Rarely mentioned, at a distance of about 12 feet, the difference in angle of view at the wide end is very small and less than many might expect.
At the wide end by my standards (cutting my photographic teeth in the film era), the 14-24 has a lot of distortion and the 16-35 has more.
Something like Lightroom is not essential to remove distortion. You can do it in the retouch menu along with shift correction – see page 358 of the D800 instruction manual, or just try it
The D7000, D600, D4 and even the D5200 have these options.
Nikon gives you choices. The 16-35 has a wider zoom range, VR, takes 77mm filters, is well built, weighs less and costs less. The 14-24 has f2.8, as a result a brighter viewfinder, better build quality, autofocuses faster and has a worryingly for some exposed large front element.
Summing up by my standards (yours may differ) the 14-24 at 14mm f2 .8 and the 16-35 at 16mm f4 are not up to a top quality A2 print in the frame corners. Apart from this good photographers using a D800 should be able to get excellent A2 prints using either lens.

Helpful Post!

Nick_w (Critique Team)

5

4 Feb 2013 - 10:06 AM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

Quote: Summing up by my standards (yours may differ) the 14-24 at 14mm f2 .8 and the 16-35 at 16mm f4 are not up to a top quality A2 print in the frame corners. Apart from this good photographers using a D800 should be able to get excellent A2 prints using either lens.

I wholehartedly agree with everything Len says, however, one minor point, re the print (i'm not disagreeing with Len) - if you are wide open at say 16mm, it is unlikely you want the corners sharp, but only the subject, which would normally be central,. or just off centre (or you would be at a smaller aperture) - so even here an A2 print should be more than acceptable.

Helpful Post!

User_Removed

3

4 Feb 2013 - 10:27 AM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

Quote:

I wholehartedly agree with everything Len says, however, one minor point, re the print (i'm not disagreeing with Len) - if you are wide open at say 16mm, it is unlikely you want the corners sharp, but only the subject, which would normally be central,. or just off centre (or you would be at a smaller aperture) - so even here an A2 print should be more than acceptable.

That's an interesting point, Nick. And I agree totally.

If I am using a w/a lens at maximum aperture, it is likely to be because I deliberately want restricted depth of field and the composition of the image would almost certainly dictate that the edges of the picture would be outwith the sharp depth of field anyway. I suppose that the one exception might be in interior architectural shots using natural light - but the higher-ISO abilities of the D800 (and many other modern cameras) is such that shots of that type might not require the lens to be wide open.

Helpful Post!