Hmmm Nikon 16-35 or 24-70 to start ?

tesco

tesco

Messages
141
Edit My Images
No
Considering going from crop (Nikon) to FF and I am planning to keep my DX camera the trusty D300 with Tokina 11-16 and 18-200mm DX lens. My other lenses are suitable for full frame. I can only buy one lens with the camera (D810) budget wise which I thought should be 16-35 F4 for Landscapes which I like a lot. But I was wondering about the 24-70 2.8 which although can't go as wide is equivalent to my Tokina at 16m but wondering if the lack of width might hack me off. There again on those occasions I still have the option of the old set up. Reason I was wondering about the 24-70 it is more versatile and from the reviews / comments the sharpness is incredible. I know it all depends on what you shoot etc but you know the feeling ?

What are your thoughts on this conundrum ?
 
What was the majority of shots you took with your old setup, focal length wise?

When I went to FX, I shot mostly 10-20mm so I went with a 16-35 which was the right decision for me.
 
I am at 11 a lot on the Tokina to be honest for landscapes I suppose the other option is the new Tamron 24-70 which is getting great reviews and I could get both probably for the price of the nikon 24-70
 
If you shoot alot at 11mm on DX then only having 24mm on FX will be a massive compromise for you, I would have a think about getting something cheaper than the 24-70 if that's possible to complement the 16-35 or maybe a cheaper UWA if the 24-70 is a deal breaker.

I used my Tokina 11-16mm on FX at 16mm with good results. Can't remember if I used filters and if this added vignetting.
 
Gary Coyle said:
Get the Nikon 16-35mm and Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 2 fantastic lenses on FX
Click to expand...

I have this combo and both are very fine lenses. The Tamron is good enough for me not to want the Nikon version, most of all the Tamron is small and light for a FF lens.
 
you got 2 lenses from Nikon's latest wide range that you can choose with similar price bracket

the 16-35 AFS-VR or the 18-35 AFS-G (about 200-300 quid cheaper); I did a small comparison using DXO database and the link below

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/nikon-ultra-wide-zoom-fx-lenses.572467/#post-6637576

if you get one of those, then you can buy a tamron 28-70 for around £100-130 to compliment your focal range...

imo, Nikon's vr system isn't really that great. tamron has amazing VR system, Sigma is very similar to Nikons and edges it slightly.

if you want pin sharp pictures on a VR I wouldn't recommend handheld shutter speed more than 1/60s...maybe its me or my lenses (16-85vr, 70-200vr, 70-300vr)
 
Last edited:
ricky1980 said:
you got 2 lenses from Nikon's latest wide range that you can choose with similar price bracket

the 16-35 AFS-VR or the 18-35 AFS-G (about 200-300 quid cheaper); I did a small comparison using DXO database and the link below

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/nikon-ultra-wide-zoom-fx-lenses.572467/#post-6637576

if you get one of those, then you can buy a tamron 28-70 for around £100-130 to compliment your focal range...

imo, Nikon's vr system isn't really that great. tamron has amazing VR system, Sigma is very similar to Nikons and edges it slightly.

if you want pin sharp pictures on a VR I wouldn't recommend handheld shutter speed more than 1/60s...maybe its me or my lenses (16-85vr, 70-200vr, 70-300vr)
Click to expand...


With the 16-35 you can fairly easily shoot at 1/4s and less at 16mm
 
I use my tokina 12-24 all the time on full frame. In fact, I haven't even bothered with looking at an upgrade as it does the job very well from 19mm. N.B. I own the 24-70 as well but I don't bring that out for landscapes. I've read that the 11-16 is even better than the 12-24 so you may be alright.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top