Nikon 16-35mm

ryanyboy

ryanyboy

Messages
5,275
Name
Ryan
Edit My Images
Yes
Gray of Westminster emailed me yesterday and I spoke to them today. They have a 16-35 with my name on and we agreed I'd pay for it etc on Monday. BUT - before I do I wondered if anyone has used it yet or seen any reviews of it. Are there any sample images about??

Still undecided on this or another 14-24mm tbh............

Ryan
 
Some nasty barrel distortion going on in some of those samples.

Left corner 100% crop here is nasty. (The Boats / Marina)
 
Still not convinced of the need for VR on a UWA zoom...or the need to drop over a 'K' on an f/4 lens...
 
To be honest, unless you need the VR or filter thread I can see absolutely no reason to buy this lens over the 14-24. It will never have the same optical quality as the 14-24, and it isn't as wide or fast. Particularly considering as it has just come out it will be at its highest price.
 
Mr_T said:
To be honest, unless you need the VR or filter thread I can see absolutely no reason to buy this lens over the 14-24. It will never have the same optical quality as the 14-24, and it isn't as wide or fast. Particularly considering as it has just come out it will be at its highest price.
Click to expand...

Personally I'm very excited about this lens. The filter thread is a massive plus for landscape shooters, plus it's smaller, lighter and cheaper than the 14-24. What's not to like :)
 
sammyd56 said:
Personally I'm very excited about this lens. The filter thread is a massive plus for landscape shooters, plus it's smaller, lighter and cheaper than the 14-24. What's not to like :)
Click to expand...

As someone who loves to shoot landscapes I entirely agree with you, I believe however that ryanyboy predominantly shoots weddings so the extra stop would make a vast difference. From what I've seen from the 16-35, it's a damn fine lens but as you'd expect isn't up to the optical gem that is the 14-24.
 
But he also uses the D3s which has outstanding iso performance. That extra stop isn't so important to him.Assuming we are talking about low light in churches etc. Shots using iso 12800 are easily useable.
I have to say, I'm very interested in this lens too. I'll give it a couple of months maybe and see what the prices do and what users have to say. Seen some positive comments from across the pond so far.

Kev.
 
I hear the 14-24mm is a belter ;)

And that Lee are about to start production of a filter system for it. :)

I'm going to be on the lookout for a fisheye next. lol
 
Hi all,

Sorry for getting back so late - been another thread going on that had taken over a bit!!

After a lot of consideration I think 2.8 is a must (even though Kev has made a great point about the ISO of the D3s). So I'm now thinking of getting the 14-24 (again) or the 17-35. Ali - can I havbe mine back? (Joke) :)

Ryan
 
I'm determined to make the 14-24mm work for me.

I did seriously consider getting the 17-35 just so that I could use filters but having read so many other peoples views (all far more in the know than me being a noob and also very well respected photographers) I could not get away from what is regarded as one of the finest UWA lenses in existence.

It even has Canon users getting converters or even, god forbid, switching to the dark side.

I will get around the filter issue, it seems by waiting for what Lee will soon be releasing. But, even if they didn't, I would find filters that would work (130mm wide ?) and get an adaptor made. It might cost a few quid but it would solve the problem.

I did think about exposure blending but would prefer to get it as right as possible in camera.
 
Radiohead said:
How about the 24/1.4?
Click to expand...

I know mate - but it's that price tag :(

Maybe in a couple of months when this year's wedding profit starts mounting up. But right now I daren't - the missus will kill me!! (And I haven't said that for far too many years) :D
 
I handled the 16-35mm today. Nice. It felt lighter than my old 14-24mm. I could be wrong. I haven't checked the specs.
Its quite compact too. I'm going to be keeping an eye out for reviews and price drops.
It will be that or the 17-35mm for me.
I did however finally get my 2.0 III converter today. taken one shot so far and it looks promising.

Kev.
 
I hate to think of what the price of the larger filters will be, bearing on mind the "standard" ones are over £50 a pop and these will be considerably larger. Ouch!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top