Wide angle for nikon

keeweeman

keeweeman

Messages
920
Name
Col
Edit My Images
Yes
I have been trying to decide which wide angle will be the best choice for me for a little while now, camera is a D750 and i want to retain the option to use filters (which automatically removes the nikon 12-24 and the tamron/sigma equivalents). Up until recently i was pretty sold on either the nikon 16-35 f4 or a 20mm prime although i am reluctant to go prime as i would prefer to just have a little choice in range. The waters have now been muddied with the release of the tamron 17-35mm f2.8-4 and having now read some reviews it looks like it could actually be the ideal solution as it seems to be sharper than the 16-35, has a filter thread and happens to be smaller, lighter and cheaper to boot but that is going off reviews online and therefore not always trustworth due to affiliations with brands etc. Does anyone on here have any experience with the above lenses (preferably more than one so they can give a proper comparison)?

Cheers

Col
 
I have the tamron 17-35 and had the nikon 16-35 - I swapped wanting a smaller setup and was very impressed with the tamron. In my copy it was definately shaper across the image, especially at the wide end.
 
PaulMoz said:
I have the tamron 17-35 and had the nikon 16-35 - I swapped wanting a smaller setup and was very impressed with the tamron. In my copy it was definately shaper across the image, especially at the wide end.
Click to expand...
That sounds consistent with the reviews which is positive thank you.

@toohuge i already have a nikon 24-70 so the sigma would be a pointless lens for me currently. I am after something at the wider end to go for once i have bought a 70-200 a bit later this year.

Thinking the tamron having the f2.8 option at the wide end could be useful for the occasional wedding i pick up too as apparently it retains that up until it is past the 20mm mark before it drops a stop
 
Hi Col,
I have the 16-35 and it is a really nice lens. However, I had a similar dilemma regarding purchasing a wide lens as I used to use the 10-20mm Sigma on a crop body prior to purchasing the D750. I wanted something that would give the same or similar kind of look as the sigma/d300s combo did. I thought that with the D750 being a full frame body. the 16-35 may give a similar look. It hasn't done that unfortunately. That's not to blame the lens, as i said before it's a great lens. The one thing i would say is that if you want to go wide, then that 1mm difference in the Tamron may matter in the end. I don't want to sell my 16-35, but I do want a wider lens and therefore, I may, reluctantly let it go at some point, especially as I've only used it less than a handful of times. It may be worth looking at the Lee Wide angle adaptor range if you do think of going towards the 12-24? I think I recall they brought out a new range to cover wide lenses, but I'm not 100 percent on that.
 
@Moey cheers for the reply, i currently have a tokina 11-16 dx lens that i have used a number of times since going full frame but it is horrendously soft at the edges and only really useful at 16mm on the d750 but it has given me some scope to know that i'm not too worried about going quite as wide as 16mm. Don't get me wrong if i had it i appreciate i would likely use it but i don't think the difference between 16 and 17 is going to be such that i can't get around it (unlike the 20mm prime where i think i would miss the vasatility) or will regret the decision based purely on that. With regards to the 14-24 i am already invested in the lee 100mm system including one of the firecrest 10 stop filters so i really want to avoid having to replace all of my filters on top of the cost of the lens. If the wedding side of things picks up i may consider that lens in the future as a specific one for the job but until i start doing enough weddings to justify the expense that is a long way off yet :)
 
Always difficult to give feedback as IQ etc is often subjective and copy specific but here goes anyway...

I owned the 16-35F4 for a while and was never happy with the corners which never really sharpened up on my copy, distortion at 16mm didn't help that either.

If you want to use filters you're very limited as most wides have bulbous front elements and whilst filter systems do exist for the likes of the Nikon 14-24 they're huge and expensive and you're duplicated filters for the sake of one lens so not ideal.

I went the prime route, or 2 to be exact:

the excellent Nikon 20mm 1.8G... sharp right into the corners, little to no distortion, handles flare well and produces very nice sunstars

the very underrated Irix 15mm F2.4... now it took me 2 copies to get a good one but the one I have is very good, infact excellent... extremely sharp into the corners, nice colour contrast and despite being manual focus is probably the easiest lens I have to use... set it on the infinity focus marker @ F11 and job done... that's if you want everything in focus of course.

If Nikon replaced the 16-35F4 with a newer model I'd be tempted but until then the primes suit me best... they might not you though!

Simon
 
Last edited:
@simonkit I have heard a few people say exactly the same about the 16-35 but it does seem that if you get a good one then it is a keeper but it can take a couple of tries. One thing that puts me off going for multiple primes is the cost, I don't have the cash spare to buy lenses regularly and normally have to save up a good while for them so if possible i would like to keep the cost down to the sort of region that i think would be a new 20mm prime, new tamron or 2nd hand 16-35 as they all come in at around the 600-650 mark so far as i can see.

I definitely agree over nikon releasing a new version of the 16-35 though, if they did that and it was competitive with some of the lenses that have been released in the last few years then it could be perfect.
 
Agreed about the 16-35, I have one and have used it for years. The distortion at 16-18mm is awful and the sharpness isn't all that consistent across the frame until 20mm or so. I use mine as a 20-28mm really (35mm isn't it's strongest suit either).

That said, the colours and contrast are very nice.
 
I have the Tamron 17-35 OSD. Like probably others, I bought it because it is compact, affordable, weather sealed, 2.8 at the wide end (for astro) but can still take filters. I really like it, though I don't like that the focus ring turns while A/F operates. You can manually focus with AF engaged but it doesn't feel like you're meant to. Other than that, fantastic.

Can also give a thumbs up for many of the other options. The 20mm 1.8g is just superb but a primes so that the only downside. The Sigma 20mm 1.4 is even better but no filter thread and chunky beast.

I also had an Irix 15mm blackstone. Loved that one for astro but I'd probably prefer something zoomy for other stuff.

I also am very fond of the Tokina 16-28 2.8. I loved the images from that but it flared terribly and no filters again but an otherwise super lens.
 
I came from Canon and the Nikon 16-35mm F4 is the only bit of kit that makes me want to return. The Canon version is much better. I've tried two of the 16-35mm and I have never been happy with the corners and I typically shoot in the F8-16 range. I bought a 14-24mm which blows the 16-35mm away but it doesn't see a huge amount of use as I like using filters. I'm hoping the new 14-30mm F4 for the z series is good as I can see me moving that way for landscapes and keeping the D850 and F2.8s for everything else
 
I suspect this is one of the causes were focus distance plays a big part in lens performance given that test charts are going to be used at very close distances and the 16-35mm seems more optimised for infinity, it did much better on the lensrental(who test at infinity with an optical bench) test didn't it?

I wouldn't say its perfect, the performance at 35mm isn't up to much(although I rarely use it anyway) and the corners at 16mm aren't great but it is in my experience only the corners that suffer with general boarder performance being good. In the 18-28mm range I really have no problems with it at all, maybe not as good as a quality prime but good enough for most uses.

It is getting on as a lens now though and I can imagine the Tamron beating it and indeed Nikon themselves potentially putting out something better in the next year or two.
 
Last edited:
Thanks guys some really helpful replies there, looks like the tamron could be the way to go currently as i'm definitely getting the feeling that the nikon is somewhat limited in the range i would want to use it (16-20mm as i already have the 24-70 f2.8).
@holty i originally looked at that one a while ago but the general consensus with it was that the 16-35 was a better lens for landscapes given that it was just more modern, better coatings etc. I may revisit it since second hand prices are sensible on that one but i do seem to recall there was good reasons to not bother with it.

Who would have thought that for once the best option could actually be the cheapest in this industry :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top