Nikon 16-35mm F/4 or Nikon 17-35mm F/2.8 for Landscapes ?

[jollyjack]

Which one would you recommend, Nikon 16-35mm F/4 or Nikon 17-35mm F/2.8 for Landscape Photography on the D700

Just Sold my Sigma 105mm Macro and going to sell my Nikon 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 AF-D to help fund it so want to make sure i get the right one.

 

[Wail]

17-35 is an outstanding lens, but I can't comment on the newer 16-35 as I've not used it. However, with landscape I can't see why the 16-35 wouldn't trump since you'll not be needing the extra one stop from the 17-35 :shrug:?

I'd happily go with the newer one, as it's got nano crystals which mean you can shoot into the sun with barely much flare.

 

[jollyjack]

Thanks Wail

Has anyone got a 16-35 that can comment on it

 

[loplyg]

I've had one for a while now and think it's excellent.

It's extremely sharp, even wide open, and the VR is nice for low light evening landscapes (can shoot down to about 1/4 second at 16mm).

Is very good at resisting flare which is pretty essential on an ultra wide, you can pop the sun any where you want and shoot away, at worst you get a few small sun spots but little loss in contrast.

 

[GRECIAN]

Thanks Wail

Has anyone got a 16-35 that can comment on it

I tried one for the weekend and found it quiet soft, maybe a bad copy but if i was buying the 17-35 would be top of my list.

 

[viewfromthenorth]

Got a 16-35 recently, not had masses of use yet, but generally impressed so far. Not quite as sharp as my 28-70 (but few lenses are), but the VR has been useful in low light, something I do quite a bit of. Can't compare with the 17-35 as I've never used one, but newer ones of those seem to go for silly money.

Speak to the man from Digital Depot who comes on TP, see what price he can do you one for!