Nikon 16-35mm F4 VR vs Nikon 17-35mm F2.8 ?

T

thesmileyone

Messages
158
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
Planning very much to buy the F4 however lots of people on here claim severe barrel distortion at 16mm, im shooting on a D70 for the moment but hoping to upgrade to a D700 (or a D3s if its worth double the money).

Now i was reading an article yesturday that said some photographers shoot in the daylight at 1/350th on iso 3200, so they have a very high shutter speed but bump up the iso to let more light in, on D3s this isnt a problem, i have very shakey hands (dyspraxia) so that really appeals to me. Unfortunatly IME, anything higher than ISO 400 on the D70 is completely unusable.

I can buy the 17-35 secondhand, there arent any secondhand 16-35's as the lens is too new, which means £980 vs £500 ish which is a good thing.

So what would you buy ? I think my 18-70 is dead, all my shots arent sharp with it, my basic 70-300mm non vr walks all over it at 70mm sharpness wise, and thats a £130 lens!

I have a 50mm prime and then i just need a 700-200 and i have pretty much 16/17-200mm.

Also considered the 14-24 but no filters... noooooo
 
Ive never used the 2.8 but i do own the 16-35 f/4 and i love it.

It has VR ofcourse which sounds like it may be useful to you. On my D700 i love it as i can take pics by moonlight at 1/4th, hand held, iso4000 and they look like daylight! Late evenings are therefore a walk in the park.

The barrel distortion i havent really noticed, maybe its there, if its ever an issue its a click of a button to fix.

As for the speed - personally id rather have VR than a 2.8 aperture. I rarely shoot below 5.6 anyway, i cant imagine using a UWA at 2.8 very often.
 
I mainly want to take long exposure night time cityscapes, wide open, just got to get a decent tripod and head aswell. Ive tried this with my lenses hand held, but having to shoot at low iso due to D70 they always come out blurred. And the other thing i shoot is cars, and my current lens is just too soft.
 
I have used the 17-35 and liked it a lot. I have heard that some of the 16-35 have had quite a few problems. Just what i've read on DP review.

If you're upgrading to a D700, much higher ISO performance will not be a problem. I have one and am very impressed with it.

Also if you're going to use a tripod, Iso isn't really an issue.:shrug:

Just my humble opinion but i'd opt for the 17-35 and buy a really decent tripod with the spare cash.
 
Have you considered the 18-35mm? I got one for my D700 and have been very impressed by the IQ, particularly given the price point (cost me around £200 second hand). It's quite small and lightweight compared to the 17-35 & 16-35 which are quite hefty beasts, and from what I've seen of the 17-35 the IQ isn't a million miles away either. Not sure why you would want to use it wide open if it's on a tripod, but the 18-35 is definitely better stopped down a touch anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top