I need help. I've got a D800 with the lenses noted below and need to fill the wide a bit. What would you chose? price is about equal on the two, I like the idea of a walk around lens like the 24-120 but wonder if it's wide enough. Any help is appreciated and I'm open to third party glass if it's on par with these two or better at similar cost.
Lenses:
Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 VR II
Nikon TC-20E-III
Nikkor 70-300mm VR
Nikkor 50mm f1.8
Tamron 90 mm Macro
Tokina 12-24mm (Old DX lens that I'm selling)
Well, you have a 50mm and a 70-200mm. So, let's fill in the wide range with the 16-35mm. Great lens--takes filters (if that's important, if you don't care about that save for the 14-24mm).
If the main use is landscape you may look to the new Tokina 17-35/4. It's a bit soft wide open but very sharp from f/5.6 and with less distortion than Nikon 16-35/4. The size, weight and price are also a big advantage.
If you really care about how the optics are going to be at it's widest angle, I would probably go for the 14-24. If you're after more of a general, more useful range then the 16-35 VR. Both have their own pros and cons.
I recently bought the 16-35 VR and have used the 14-24. The 14-24 is better optically but more limited in what you can do. Plus it costs a bit more & can't take regular filters as well.
For general shooting of everything, the 24-120 that you have in your list would be a better option. As it's not going to ultra wide focal lengths, it's not going to distort horribly, one would assume. I haven't used it so can't say for sure.
I just did a Blog post about my new 16-35 with samples and such, you can see it's not bad for interiors and general ultra wide stuff.
I have had difficulty getting it to behave in more wide open and distant subject matter scapes though. Although that could very well be me not knowing how to use it in those situations.
Personally I would go with the Zeiss ZF.2 21mm or the 14-24G. They are both *excellent* landscape lenses... pluses and minuses to each. Do your homework.
Tokina 16-28 beats the 16-35 in IQ at every focal length and every aperture (plus way better distortion control), it just resolves more detail on the D800/E - it matches the 14-24 in most all applications as well and at f/8 is so close if not better.
domdog31 wrote:
Tokina 16-28 beats the 16-35 in IQ at every focal length and every aperture (plus way better distortion control), it just resolves more detail on the D800/E - it matches the 14-24 in most all applications as well and at f/8 is so close if not better.
I'd have gotten the 16-28 if it accepted filters... that was the deal breaker for me. I'm pretty happy with my Nikon 16-35 & that's what I'd recommend.
Definitely 16-35. It is a perfect complement to your 70-200 VRII especially if you're a heavy filter user. I have a standard Lee 77mm ring on the 70-200 and a WA 77mm ring on the 16-35 and I use the Lee foundation kit on these lenses seamlessly. Good luck doing that with the 14-24 or the Tokina
Here's a 16-35 shot with a Lee big stopper, Cokin 81EF, and a HiTech 0.3 soft.
elbeasto wrote:
I just did a Blog post about my new 16-35 with samples and such, you can see it's not bad for interiors and general ultra wide stuff.
I have had difficulty getting it to behave in more wide open and distant subject matter scapes though. Although that could very well be me not knowing how to use it in those situations.
One thing I'd like to note... On the 16mm end, like everyone says, there is a lot of distortion...
You can correct this in lightroom and ACR. However, the correction, while good, is not great---a lot of the corners get cut off, etc--meh--it works, but isn't perfect...
But! The distortion correction in Capture NX2 is MUCH better. Cuts off much less of the image and results in much less softening overall. It's quite a dramatic difference.
Wow, I didn't think it would be so lopsided towards the ultra wide. Even with that I think it's still a tossup. The 24-120 seems like one helluva walk around/light travel lens. I hate decisions! I'd get both if I could afford it! The only filters I use are sky or polarized and I use those maybe 30% of the time so that is not a deciding factor.
I have the 16-35 f4 VR, it is a great lens, it is suppose to be one of the sharpest lenses from Nikon!! I have used the 14-24 but never owned one.
I have never read anything stellar about the 24-120 myself.
If you're on a budget the new 24-85 f3.5-4.5 vr looks like a great lens?? I'd take it over the 24-120 that costs 2x as much.
I'll agree with Steven Evans. Look into the Nikkor 24-85VRII. It's $600 and a heck of a lot lighter than the 24-120. I like mine...
Also, if you can find a 16-35/4 VRII, get it. If not, look into the Tokina 17-35/4. I like mine for the $$$ invested, and it's a lot less expensive. You can have both, the Nikkor 24-85 & the Tokina 17-35 for the price of the 24-120...
If those issues do matter, and since I'm on a MF lens kick, a 20/3.5 AIS is a fairly good and cheap and little alternative. Or the 20/2.8 is OK. Not as good as the 14-24, but often good enough and easy to carry.
So, if you are thinking 24-120 as walkaround lens, then I would consider adding the 20 (AF or MF version) if you happen to need a bit wider. Versatile and efficient little kit.
Addendum - also could mess with the fisheye 16mm. They are small and there is correction software that makes them an interesting alternative.
