Nikon 16-35 F4 and or Nikon 20mm 1.8

bbg404

bbg404

Messages
1,302
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
Yes
I was out last night with the 16-35 F4 on my D750 and I couldn't help but thinking I could improve things by getting the Nikon 20mm 1.8.

Don't get me wrong I love this 16-35 for landscapes and its wide for Night / Astro Photography but I shout a few shots at 20mm F4 ISO1600 up to ISO4000 and while the results are good i just cant stop thinking about the 20mm 1.8.

Have any of you made the jump?

If I sold the 16-35 for the 20mm would I miss the 4mm? Probably not
 
I would imagine that the extra 2 stops (approx.) would come in handy for Night/astro work. I've not used the 20mm f1.8 but if it is as good as the other newish f1.8's then IQ will never be in question. You may find you want something around the 28-35mm mark too if you were to change ...
 
Interested in this discussion. My wides lens is my Sigma 35 Art and I am off to the Candian Rockies next summer.

Currently weighing up the 16-35, 20 F1.8 or 18-35.

As I shoot weddings the 20mm is appealing most at the moment due to being able to use it for low light and shallow DOF.
 
bbg404 said:
I was out last night with the 16-35 F4 on my D750 and I couldn't help but thinking I could improve things by getting the Nikon 20mm 1.8.

Don't get me wrong I love this 16-35 for landscapes and its wide for Night / Astro Photography but I shout a few shots at 20mm F4 ISO1600 up to ISO4000 and while the results are good i just cant stop thinking about the 20mm 1.8.

Have any of you made the jump?

If I sold the 16-35 for the 20mm would I miss the 4mm? Probably not
Click to expand...

If it's any help I got rid of my 16-35 and bought a similar lens in the Zeiss 21mm distagon for which I believe the 20mm 1.8 Nikon is nearly comparable in terms of iq and it is a little wider. Did I regret shifting it? Well yes and no. No, because the iq from the prime is superior, no question, and yes in that sometimes i wish I had something a little wider, but I shoot exclusively landscapes, no astro.
For what you're shooting however, the 20mm 1.8 seems like the obvious choice.
 
Last edited:
I guess it depends what else you'd use the 20mm for. I know for me that night shots would probably be less than 1% of the shots I take. I shoot predominantly landscapes and I know I would definitely miss the extra 4mm at the wide end.
 
NeilA1975 said:
If it's any help I got rid of my 16-35 and bought a similar lens in the Zeiss 21mm distagon for which I believe the 20mm 1.8 Nikon is nearly comparable in terms of iq and it is a little wider. Did I regret shifting it? Well yes and no. No, because the iq from the prime is superior, no question, and yes in that sometimes i wish I had something a little wider, but I shoot exclusively landscapes, no astro.
For what you're shooting however, the 20mm 1.8 seems like the obvious choice.
Click to expand...

Thank you that was another lens I thought of the Zeiss 21mm but I don't think I can stretch I think I'll go for the 20mm try it then decide if I need to keep the 16-35! I've got the 24-120 if I needed anything longer than 20mm which I normally try frame my shots at about 20mm on the 16-35 then I can get used to it but it's just not the same being stuck at 20mm and then on a night be as fast as 1.8

Decision made
 
Depends how much astro work you're going to do - I've used my 16-35 for two nights pics in the last year so wouldn't warrant me having another lens just to do astro.
 
As an alternative, how about the Samyang 14mm f2.8 ?
Very highly thought of for astro work. Sharp, very little coma, and of course, cheap !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top