p.2 #1 · ~$950 for landscape + walk around FX lens
I had an early 17-35 2.8 but changed it for 16-35 4 which I found better in the corners and preferable contrast/ sharper with the new coatings. But all lenses mentioned are pretty good stopped down.
p.2 #4 · ~$950 for landscape + walk around FX lens
I would go for a zoom lens as you would not have to change between the 17 and 35 primes.
The 16-35 VR is a great lens and you can get it under $1000 used.
Tokina also has 2 new FX wide zooms, 17-35 f/4 and 16-24 f/2.8 and both are under $900
Nijay wrote:
$950 to spend... Want to cover wide angles for landscapes and a general walk around lens on my D700.
Currently have a Sigma 85mm f/1.4 so there isn't much chance of overlap here.
My initial thoughts:
Nikon 35mm f/2
Tokina 17mm f/3.5
That would only run me around $500 total (saving money is always a plus).
Plan B: Nikon 16-35mm f/4
Not a big fan of the loss of a stop. Also eats up my entire budget. But I get an all in one solution which is nice. The IQ is, apparently, world class.
>Optical performance competitive with the Nikkor 17-35 ƒ2.8 AF-S at a third of the price and weight. This was a fixture in Galen’s camera bag.
If I have one SERIOUS beef with the 16-35/4 it is that it is too damn large and too damn heavy for a 16-35/4. Canon's 17-40/4 is beautifully light and compact. I almost went Canon for that and the 70-200/4 alone. For all the 18-XXX lenses that Nikon has churned out in the past 6 years, sometimes "updating" them for no particular reason, you would think that they would come out with lenses that everyone seems to be clamoring for
16-35/4 no VR, light and compact
70-200/4 VR, this would sell in droves, I would sell my 70-200/2.8 VR immediately for this one
300/4 VR
80-400 AFS VR
Sure, there are a lot of other high-end stuff people want, but in terms of likely sales volumes these should dwarf most everything else. Do I have data... no
>Optical performance competitive with the Nikkor 17-35 ƒ2.8 AF-S at a third of the price and weight. This was a fixture in Galen’s camera bag.
Nice idea, however, that is largely a reference to that lens' performance on film, certainly not on full-frame digital. The optical makeup of that lens (and many film-era UWA lenses) is such that light strikes the corners of the frame at off angles (as opposed to perpendicularly), resulting in soft corners. Look at the Photozone reviews of the 18-35 and 17-35 on the D3x, among others. While they might have performed similarly on film, they certainly don't on full-frame digital.
p.2 #9 · ~$950 for landscape + walk around FX lens
Yes, he said wide.
I really like my 28-300 but there are times when I need my 14-24.
If I were him, I would get a used 17-35 Nikkor.
I had the 16-35 and sent it back. I prefer f/2.8 to VR
p.2 #10 · ~$950 for landscape + walk around FX lens
danceswithfrog wrote:
Nijay,
depending on your shooting style you may consider wide angle primes for landscape:
according to photozone.de resolution of the AF-D 20mm and the AF-D 24mm at f5.6 and f8 is very close to 14-24mm performance - albeit in a very light package.
as i recently switched to nikon for the D800 i bought both the 20 and 24 last week on ebay for USD 210 and 330 respectively...
the 35mm 2.0 apparently performs less than stellar - if your style allows i think a 50 1.8 AF-s for 220 new would be a brilliant solution - total cost 760 USD for 20 & 24 f 2.8 wideangle and 50mm f1.8....Show more →
I do not agree: Of course the corners matters, but so do the center, and there is a long way up to the 14-24:
It is better to compare the 35mm f/2.0 and at f. 8 as I presume you would use on scapes, I have a hard time to understand why it should be not so steller as the 20mm and 24 mm, the difference is minor - better in the center and nearly equal in the corners.
p.2 #11 · ~$950 for landscape + walk around FX lens
GroovyGeek wrote:
If I have one SERIOUS beef with the 16-35/4 it is that it is too damn large and too damn heavy for a 16-35/4. Canon's 17-40/4 is beautifully light and compact.
IMO this is only valid if the Canon 17-40's performance is comparable to the Nikon 16-35. Everything that I've read indicates otherwise.
It is better to compare the 35mm f/2.0 and at f. 8 as I presume you would use on scapes, I have a hard time to understand why it should be not so steller as the 20mm and 24 mm, the difference is minor - better in the center and nearly equal in the corners.
At wider apertures the 35mm f/2.0 is not as good in the corners = Agree
I doubt anyone who believes the 35/2D to be inadequate would have much interest in any of the 20mm or 24mm Nikon primes, other than the exceptional 24/1.4g. They've all got their charms (portability is an obvious benefit, and the flare resistance of the 20/3.5 AIS is especially nice), but none are as good as the 35/2D. Yes, the 35 takes a few stops to bring the corners in, but there's nothing surprising about that, and it's still much more consistent across the frame than the older 20/24 options.
The older 20mm and 24mm primes can't match the 16-35, either. The zoom is at its best at those focal lengths, and the only lenses that are better are the 14-24/2.8 and the 24/1.4g.
p.2 #13 · ~$950 for landscape + walk around FX lens
I ended up buying a 17-35mm with a bad AF motor (known condition) so I got it, played with it for about 5 minutes, and put it back into the box to send it off to APS.
I've tried out a bunch of different zooms and have always gone back to primes. Hopefully this time is different.
