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

  • NEWS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here

Nikon 16-35 f4 any good on D800

User_Removed 8 4.6k 1 Scotland
17 Jan 2013 11:00PM
I had a look at your album, David, but not sure that it actually demonstrates anything. What were you trying to show?

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Hi Have a look my album gallery which I took by 17-35 F2.8 all hand held no VR on this model. cheers
Leftforum, read my text on image where I took ar F2.8 on all focal length on noral image by D800 and also crop from same image, shows how sharp is this lens hope you understand
User_Removed 8 4.6k 1 Scotland
24 Jan 2013 9:17AM
..but the images are so poor that you can't really tell anything from them.

I just don't see what you are trying to demonstrate.

Remember that trying to assess anything about lens quality from a low-res web image on a PC monitor is a pretty fruitless exercise anyway.
peterjones Plus
16 4.7k 1 United Kingdom
24 Jan 2013 4:20PM
To the OP's original question I have a 16-35 with a D800 and am perfectly happy with the combination.


http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/112 or http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1735.htm
Cagey75 6 42 Ireland
8 Feb 2013 6:28PM
Oh god, why do people still insist on linking to KR???

Anyway, the 17-35 is stupidly priced these days for an old D designed lens. It's double the price of the 16-35 f/4 on amazon UK. I know if I was buying I'd get the newer designed one with VR and use the money saved to buy a nice prime Smile
Valveman 5 1 1 United Kingdom
10 Feb 2013 12:03PM
Nick_w There certainly is an inbuilt cover on the D800 Smile
thewilliam 9 6.1k
10 Feb 2013 2:03PM
My 17-55 is an AFS and not a "D" and what's the point of VR with such a wide-angle lens?
Nick_w Plus
10 4.3k 99 England
10 Feb 2013 2:30PM

Quote:and what's the point of VR with such a wide-angle lens?

I was photographing interiors last week in low light, no tripods allowed, I can only say using VR was a godsend, yes you can use higher ISOs which I did, but was still at ISO 3200, with a shutter speed of 1/10 sec, and pin sharp.

There's nothing wrong with either lens in the right hands.
thewilliam 9 6.1k
10 Feb 2013 8:38PM
Old hands just learned to hold cameras steady by finding a firm support. One tenth with a ultra-wide andgle is no big deal!
Hi thewilliam
I agreed with your comments that VR not need on wide angles, better on telephoto, wideangles lenses are more for landscape and need tripod work, if anyone read lens instruction manual that turn VR off when mount on tripod!!!!!!!!!!! Once I use canon 17-40 F4L years back and I use it for wedding groups, some hand held and some on tripod, all clients are happy with my images! I have my nikon 17-35 F2.8, Interesting I found from internet:-
This 17-35mm is sharp at all apertures, has great ghost resistance, less falloff than fixed lenses, only moderate distortion, is built like a tank and weighs about as much, too. It's made of solid metal, not the toy-store painted plastic. The only gotcha is that if you are dumb enough to shoot at f/2.8 in daylight at 17mm and then look in the farthest corners with a microscope, it's soft. Professional photographer don't do that, but online experts might.

 Re: Which is beter for FX 17-35 f2.8 or 16-35 f4?

The difference in sharpness is negligible when you have both at the same apertures. Obviously, the 17-35 can open up to f/2.8 if needed, but none of the four copies I've personally used (including one new out of the box) are particularly sharp wide open. There was a test I saw on DPReview which compared the two lenses side by side on a tripod in front of San Jose Camera, and I could hardly tell the difference between the two images after pixel-peeping for a while.

For what it's worth, friend of mine looked at the same images and insisted that the 16-35 is way sharper, but I think the slightly-improved contrast was what she was seeing.

The 16-35 has the modern "Nano" coating, which is a little bit more than just marketing, and is a G lens without an aperture ring, and has VR. The 17-35, however, is really good at flare resistance when pointed into the sun (without a filter, naturally, and assuming one's copy is relatively free of dust inside), and the corners shape up pretty quickly.

Personally, I've owned the 17-35 for four years, and have no intention of changing to the new lens at this time.
Nick_w Plus
10 4.3k 99 England
11 Feb 2013 10:21AM

Quote:Personally, I've owned the 17-35 for four years, and have no intention of changing to the new lens at this time.

I find it strange then why you recently started a thread asking which one to chose.

Nano coatings do work, anyone who wears glasses will be able to vouch for the anti reflective coatings. It helps both reduce reflections, increase contrast, and as a result sharpness (tho I too am very sceptical about the word nano).
Watch out new 16-35 VR F2.8 coming shortly. 17-35 lens is very good lens, 16-35 VR is very good lens, as I said VR is not necessary for wide angle if you are DOING landscape work with tripod. If you are landscape specailist, all Ziess 21mm and 35mm are brilliant lenses, both have no VR!!! and very very expensive which is out of question, I found 17-35 is very sharp all range 17 to 35mm, when I use Lee filter and CPL wont work on 16 or 17mm, would be near 20mm. If with lee filters then 17mm is useful. 16mm may foul with lee filters.
thewilliam 9 6.1k
11 Feb 2013 11:53AM
The 17-35 is due for an update so the 16-35 f2.8 shouldn't be a surprise. They know that the focal length range is worth offering because they had to bring the 17-35 out of retirement.

When will they release a zoom lens that opens up to f2 or wider because that really would be something?

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.