Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  

FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2012 · 17-35 vs 16-35?
  
 
Rodolfo Paiz
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · 17-35 vs 16-35?


I'm curious as to the pros and cons of these two lenses. I have the 16-35 and have been pretty happy with it, though the distortion bugs me a little. But I like the VR, which is nice in dark churches where tripods are not allowed. So it seems like the 17-35 offers one stop more speed and less distortion, while the 16-35 has VR and is lighter weight though slower.

From those who've used either or (ideally) both lenses, I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts on the pros and cons of each.



Oct 12, 2012 at 08:37 PM
jhinkey
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · 17-35 vs 16-35?


I have not used the 16-35, but I thought I would not be keeping my 17-35AFS when I got my D800, but have been pleasantly surprised.

Is it sharp wide open? - Only in the center, but stopped down to f/8 it's pretty darned sharp all over at all focal lengths. Photozone data seems to indicate that at equivalent apertures there's not that much difference between the two.

What I really like about it is the resistance to ghosting and flare (if you don't have a filter on it that is).

There have only been a few times that I wish I'd had VR, but that was in a cave . . . .

Some day I'll take my 17-35 and shoot it next to a 16-35 to really see what the difference is (if any).

I'm sure there will be folks that have or have had both that will chime in.

For your uses it looks



Oct 12, 2012 at 11:08 PM
dbr403
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · 17-35 vs 16-35?


I have had both, prefer the 16-35 f4 for its better focusing speed, the VRII is killer good, the Nano coating works ! In my world the 16-35 f4 VR is just sharper and more responsive to focus changes. As a PJ the loss of a stop worried me, but with today's high ISO files I can live with that. In a breaking news situation the 24-70 is more of my go to lens, coupled with a second body using the 70-200VRII. You can make some pretty nice art with the 16 - and I don't take to many pix of blank brick walls anyway Hope this helps / D


Oct 12, 2012 at 11:15 PM
Jay968
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · 17-35 vs 16-35?


16-35 - Faster quieter focusing, slightly better edges at 16mm (though not great either) than the 17-35 at 17mm. Has vibration reduction. Much less expensive lens with slightly better sharpness.
17-35 - 2.8 is a plus, smaller overall, however much noisier slower focusing. These lenses also have a tendency to squeek when focusing which can be very irritating. They do have a manual aperture ring so can be used on older film cameras.

I chose the 16-35.



Oct 13, 2012 at 03:20 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Nathan Padgett
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · 17-35 vs 16-35?


I traded my 16-35mm for a 17-35mm, mainly for the extra stop. Yes the 16-35 was a tiny bit sharper, and the VR is great. I think the 17-35mm has better focusing. Seems a little faster to me, especially in very dark situations (which could be because of 2.8 and brighter viewfinder). I know a lot of people have had problems with the focus motor in the 17-35 so I expect mine to get the problem someday, but so far it has been silent.

Overall I think it comes down to what you shoot. Landscapes, interiors, and static stuff I'd stay with the 16-35mm. For weddings, PJ stuff, the 17-35mm may suit you better.



Oct 13, 2012 at 02:00 PM
Rodolfo Paiz
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · 17-35 vs 16-35?


Thanks for everyone's input. Nathan's last line about "landscapes, interiors, and static stuff" is spot on, since that's pretty much exactly what I shoot. After all your comments and a little research, I've decided to keep my 16-35 and not go looking for potentially-greener grass.


Oct 15, 2012 at 04:19 PM
AndreasE
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #7 · 17-35 vs 16-35?


Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
After all your comments and a little research, I've decided to keep my 16-35 and not go looking for potentially-greener grass.


Ok Rodolfo,
let's check how resistant you really are :-)

D800, AFS 16-35mm @ 24mm and f4






100% crop, upper left corner






Have you really explored all the green grasses out there ? .....

rgds,
Andy




Oct 15, 2012 at 07:51 PM





FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password