Nikon 17-35 or 16-35 Lens ?

Rocket

Rocket

CTID
Messages
2,946
Name
Tony
Edit My Images
Yes
Anyone can offer there thoughts or indeed there experience on the below lenses. Only difference I can see via viewing is the VR.
I will be in the market for second hand one of these so some guidance would be helpful please..

Nikon Zoom AF-S ED-IF 17-35mm f/2.8D Wide Angle Lens
OR
Nikon Zoom AF-S F4 G ED 16-35MM VR wide Angle Lens

Thanks.
 
Have you thought about the nikon 18-35g seems to be a contender against the 16-35, it's lighter but doesn't have the build quality but optically seems on parr.

Not had any hands on experience but am in the same situation and have narrowed it down between the two.

Kellett
 
kellett said:
Have you thought about the nikon 18-35g seems to be a contender against the 16-35, it's lighter but doesn't have the build quality but optically seems on parr.

Not had any hands on experience but am in the same situation and have narrowed it down between the two.

Kellett
Click to expand...

Thanks Kellett .Another option perhaps.. I believe I went down a similar route once before, but after purchasing a Tamron 24-70 I still have a need for something a wider, Just looked at some reviews on the 18-35 and does very well, light weight and sharp apparently and cheaper..
 
WingTsun said:
The 17-35 AFS is very good, indeed. One you might think about, though, is the older 20-35 mm f/2.8 D. That's a cracking lens and often now overlooked.
Click to expand...
Thanks Dunc, I feel the 20-35 maybe not wider enough for my needs..
 
I had the 16-35 f4 for a while and loved it.

Distortion at 16mm is severe but can be corrected with lens priofiles in LR no problem.

I have no experience of the 17-35 though.
 
I have had the 17-35 for many years. When the 16 version came out I looked into it - and decided to stick with the more compact, better built and unless you go pixel peeping, equally good lens. If you simply look at images, like a photography buyer does (as in they look at the whole image, not a tiny portion of it, just the same as the reader / viewer looks at the entire image) then you will be hard pushed to tell the difference. I am sure there are scientific differences that will show up on an MTF graph or a resolution chart, but in the REAL WORLD, it is so insignificant as to be discountable. The thing is, you don't have both lenses taking the same scene at the same time, so you can never compare them side by side - you look at the image you have got.

The new 16-35 has more distortion, is far inferior in build quality even though it has the fancy dancy VR (on a wide angle?) and that makes it heavy and bulky in comparison. I looked again today, and my mind hasn't been swayed. The 17-35 still cuts the mustard and it has that extra stop, right across the board....I wonder why the 16-35 wasn't produced as an f2.8 seeing as how it is supposed to be a professional quality lens?
 
May this will help:

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-16-35mm-f4g-vr/5

Weight wise there isn't much in them (16-35 680g and 17-35 745g) because of VR and f2.8 both add weight.

kellett said:
Have you thought about the nikon 18-35g seems to be a contender against the 16-35, it's lighter but doesn't have the build quality but optically seems on parr.

Not had any hands on experience but am in the same situation and have narrowed it down between the two.

Kellett
Click to expand...
The 18-35G is another lens to think about. Unless you need f2.8 my choice would be from the 18-35 and 16-35.
 
Ive owned most of the ultra wide zooms and primes over the years. I started with the Tokina AF 20-35mm f3.5/4.5 Then the ATX 20-35 f2.8 followed by Nikon 20-35mm 2.8, Nikon AFD 18-35mm 3.5/4.5,Nikon AFS17-35mm 2.8, AFS14-24 2.8, AFS VR16-35 f4.0, Sigma 17-35mm 2.8/4,Sigma 15-30mm 3.5/4.5 and then there are DX fit ones,
TBH I can't believe i struck lucky ith every one i purchased but none of them were dogs!
The one i should have kept or not traded ?
Tokina Af20-35mm 3.5/4.5 sharp contrasty very little distortion and better than the 2.8 Version !
Sigma AF 17-35mm f2.8/4 still have some great shots to process taken with this in the lake district and Wales.
Nikon AFD 18-35mm 3.5/4.5 as sharp as ant of the other Nikon UWA takes filters if you want to use and light weight.

today i have for
DX Tokina 10-17mm 3.5/4.5 F.F. fisheye to 17mm, Canon 10-22mm 3.5/4.5 APSc Fujinon XF10-24 f4 ois
FX Nikon AFS-VR 16-35mm f4 and the Sigma 15-35mm x 2 one for my Canon FF
Just remember the older lenses like Nikon AFS 17-35mm f2.8 and the AFS 28-70mm f2.8 are becoming harder to get serviceable parts for as they are discontinued lenses the same applies tp the AFS80-200mm f2.8.which is a pity really.
So I would choose carefully and go try a couple out the photography show isn't that far away if you can get there?
If your going to go the used/s/h route make sure that you have the option to return if you not satisfied with it.
Any thing that has a inbuilt motor check its not squeaking or making any strange noises and zoom action is smooth and not jerky or stiff, and it goes without saying carefully check the optics for fungi and marks/scratches along with filter thread or other damage :)
 
Last edited:
Rocket said:
Anyone can offer there thoughts or indeed there experience on the below lenses. Only difference I can see via viewing is the VR.
I will be in the market for second hand one of these so some guidance would be helpful please..

Nikon Zoom AF-S ED-IF 17-35mm f/2.8D Wide Angle Lens
OR
Nikon Zoom AF-S F4 G ED 16-35MM VR wide Angle Lens

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Unless youre doing astro, then you don't need the 2.8 of the 17-35, they are however lovely pieces of kit but still expensive used and are not easy to find in excellent condition.
The 16-35 however, is wider, cheaper and IQ wise is slightly better than the17-35 and is overall the better buy IMHO.
 
Thanks all, very interesting replies and decent advise. I now feel the 17-35 might well be getting a little aged. WEX is not that far away from me so it makes sense to go along a try a couple out. And as I understand one can return if not happy..
 
Last edited:
I only recently picked up a 16-35, as stated VR maybe redundant a lot of the time but having taken it out and used it for lowlight handheld I personally found the VR incredibly useful, the quality of the images is much better than I hoped for too but in reality all reports suggest the 17-35 does seem to hold its own so I guess they really are very close and personal preference and usage will determine your own choice?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top