wide zoom lens

holty

holty

Messages
6,401
Edit My Images
No
actively looking to buy either the nikon 16-35 f4 or the nikon 17-35 2.8
have read about every test and review about them and dont know which is best:runaway::runaway::runaway:
looking for friendly advice on the pro's and con's for them.
anyone with the above lens's fell free to tell me there opinion of there lens
 
Indeed :)

I went with the 16-35 as I don't use a tripod.

Occasionally I wish I had f/2.8, when I'm doing milky way shots for instance but on the whole I prefer VR.
 
i have pretty steady hands so vr maybe not so important so f2.8 might be more useful
 
I went with the 16-35 too, mainly as it will double as a great travel lens for holidays too with the VR. Neither of these lenses are particularly sharp at larger aperture either so I'm not sure how usable the F2.8 would be on the 17-35?

Simon
 
simonkit said:
I went with the 16-35 too, mainly as it will double as a great travel lens for holidays too with the VR. Neither of these lenses are particularly sharp at larger aperture either so I'm not sure how usable the F2.8 would be on the 17-35?

Simon
Click to expand...


My 16-35 is pixel sharp from corner to corner at f/4 at every focal length on my D700 (but obviously the objects can be pretty small in the frame!). It is pretty damn big and heavy though and if I was doing general photography I think I'd prefer a small 35mm prime.

However, my general travel kit is the 16-35, 50mm and 70-300VR and that covers everything I could ever need.
 
Nawty said:
That is a lovely shot :)
Click to expand...
Thank you! I should have added that the 17-35 is comparatively heavy too (though I use large / medium format a lot so weight is probably all relative). I seriously considered the 16-35 at one stage as I understand it to be excellent, but hardly use the 17-35 much so thought that I should probably not get yet another lens to add to the collection!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top