Help: Nikon 16-35mm or 17-35mm?

Traubrey

Traubrey

Messages
399
Name
Ray
Edit My Images
No
Hi

I'm moving to FX (D600) from DX and need a good lens for landscapes, architecture, museums etc.

I've read a great deal about both lenses and I'm struggling to make up my mind. The 17-35mm, though a much more expensive lens can be bought for the same, if not marginally less, than the 16-35mm in the second hand market which says something about the regard for the lens (or production numbers).

I've discounted the 14-24mm because that bulbous front end scares me as well as the filter options.

The VR on 16-35mm appeals to me for low light situations however it will spend maybe 30% of its life on a tripod. The distortion at 16mm is troublesome

Anyone who can share any real world opinions from users would be warmly welcomed.

Thanks in advance.

Ray
 
I've used a 16-35mm on my D700 for a couple of years and have been delighted with it. I've used it quite a lot in low light, where the VR has been invaluable. I've never really been concerned by distortion, I seem to recall the architectural photos I took with it were more or less corrected in Lightroom.
 
The 17-35 isn't that much more than the 16-35 new if you buy from one of the HK sellers (£900-odd as opposed to the £800-odd that the 16-35 goes for). Having said that, the 16-35 is better optically and the distortion at 16mm is correctable in Lightroom so that's where I'd put my money if you don't mind the one stop difference. Actually, where I would really put my money (and did!) is the Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4, it is in no way disgraced next to the Nikon 17-35 - I've had both and still have the Tamron. Best of all, you can get one for less than £200 used.
 
viewfromthenorth said:
I've used a 16-35mm on my D700 for a couple of years and have been delighted with it. I've used it quite a lot in low light, where the VR has been invaluable. I've never really been concerned by distortion, I seem to recall the architectural photos I took with it were more or less corrected in Lightroom.
Click to expand...

+1. I considered the 17-35, but Im more than happy with the 16-35. The VR is really useful and my copy is perfectly sharp even wide open. Distortion is minimal. I rarely use the corerction in lightroom, only some building shots may need a bit.

Just watch out for a rare but known problem on the 16-35, which is the tiny stop screw on the lens mount can fall out and means the lens cant be removed from the camera and just spins, destroying the lens and the body.. Dont ask how I found that out....

Nikon footed the bill though, even 1 year out of warranty on the lens and 2 on the body.
 
Last edited:
I've owned both. Oddly I found the 17-35 better optically, less distortion, sharper. The 16-35 is regarded by a lot of people to be better.

I don't think you can go wrong with either. The 16mm for landscapes is nice and the 17-35 in my experience was good for both landscape and people shots due to much less distortion. On mine 35mm was still too distorted for people shots
 
I would opt for the 16-35 personally. I also recommend that you consider the 24-70 f/2.8. OK it's not as wide but as a someone who shoots primarily landscapes I find this lens does 90% for what I need. The 16-35 works great for low perspectives and beach work.
 
I sold my Nikon 24-70 once I'd had the 16-35 for a few weeks as I just wasn't using it anymore.
 
Ah, I couldn't do that. Sometimes that extra reach is needed. I couldn't happily shoot Swanage pier for example <35mm.
 
I was making the same choice, different sources seem to favour one over the other optically but overall I get the sense there not far appart, both seem to perform well from 16/17-30mm stopped down and then drop off a bit in boarder performance as you get to 35mm.

I'd make your choice based on other areas...

16-35mm - Slightly wider, lighter, VR, weather sealed, UK warrenty.

17-35mm - Faster, less distortion, tougher metal body, smaller.

Personally I liked the size/build of the 17-35mm but in the end desided VR and weather sealing were going to be more useful to me and picke dup the 16-35mm. Both also seem to have problems with sample variation(why I'd guess many opinions differ) so buying from a local dealer made me feel a bit more comfortable.
 
Last edited:
Digifrog said:
Ah, I couldn't do that. Sometimes that extra reach is needed. I couldn't happily shoot Swanage pier for example <35mm.
Click to expand...

If you were potentially looking for both that does seem to be a nod in favour of the 16-35mm, means you have both VR and 2.8 in the 24-35mm range.
 
Wonderful advice.

My heart and my head were edging towards the 16-35mm and the comments have confirmed that. Note made about the lethal fault.

I will have a look at the Tamron which had not appeared on my radar.

I've got the 24-70mm but it feels wasted on my D7000. I had planned to take it out into the Peak District to see how it performs on the D600. Still think I'll need that extra reach but I'll give it a go.

Thanks again. It really is much appreciated.

Ray
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top