Upload & Sell: Off
| p.1 #20 · Is that patented 16-35 F2.8VR coming? |
Lance B wrote:
Andre Labonte wrote:
Lance B wrote:
Andre Labonte wrote:
Lance B wrote:
16mm on the 16-35 has more distortion than the 17mm on the 17-35. So, when you correct the 16-35 for distortion, you probably end up with a ver similar FOV as the 17mm on the 17-35 when that lens is also corrected for distortion, ie, there will be little difference between the two.
The 17-35 f2.8 only allows one stop extra for freezing action, how often does that scenario really occur in every day shooting? Just up the ISO one stop and there you go!
I have the 16-35 and think it's a great lens due to the VR and it's colour rendition and sharpness. VR is such a benefit inside buildings like churches and cathedrals and castles etc where it is always dark.
I also have the 14-24. However, if I didn't have the 16-35, then the 17-35 would definitely be the other lens I'd have.
I can't speak to your 16mm vs. 17mm and distortion comment, but I can tell you that upping the ISO by a stop and opening the aperatur by a stop are two very very different things and most certainly do impact the image. One stop is a BIG deal at times.
Shooting say the D600, D700, D4, D3 or D800 at ISO 100 with the 17-35 @ f2.8 and having to up the ISO200 when using the 16-35 @ f4 isn't going to make much of a discernable difference, or for that matter most ISO's up to about ISO3200, the difference of one stop is minimal bewteen the two. I mean really. The only real difference is a DOF, if you require shallow DOF for isolation purposes, then you may see some advantage of f2.8 over f4.
As I said, there would be very few instances where you would be at the limit of use in order to get a decent shutter speed from the 16-35 f4 to freeze action as you only need to up the ISO by a stop to match that of the shutter speed from the 17-35 f2.8.
As for a 16-35 f/2.8 ... that would be a good move by Nikon. It would establish an updated f/2.8 range of pro zooms with a parallel f/4 set of compact zooms with comparable focal lengths.
I would like a 16-35 f2.8 version, but as long as it had VR, otherwise I'd just get the current 17-35 f2.8 which is already and excellent lens.
So what you are saying is that YOU do not push the limits of your equipment ... that's nice, but other people do and for them, every stop counts.
What are you talking about? What do you think moving the ISO to 6400 instead of ISO3200 is other than "pushing the limits of the camera??"
Also, there are the artistic aspects that must be considered. While you may get the same shutter speed bumping ISO by a stop or changing aperature by a stop, you get different artistic effects that are quite noticable depending on the rages of ISO and/or aperature you are operating in ... clearly outside of what you do, but not outside the range of what most people whom buy this kind of glass do.
Most? You can qualify this? You will not see a difference between ISO100 and ISO200. That's what we are talking about and if you do, the difference is subtle to say the least and I guarantee will not impact on 99% of your images. The same can be said of just about every stop of different ISO's up to about ISO3200.
1) Bumping ISO ALWAYS degrades IQ and should be avoided where possible. The effects of one stop of ISO may or may not be significant depending on where in the ISO range you already are. e.g. going from 200 to 400 is no big deal,
That's exactly the point, I guarantee that most are shooting at relatively low ISO's for exactly the reason you point out, that ISO always degrades IQ, however, I stand by my assertion that up to ISO3200, there is little difference between each stop of ISO that couldn't be cleaned up via a noise reduction program that would render the difference basically inseperable.
going from 3200 to 6400 is a HUGE deal.
Not on my D7000, D700 or D800 it isn't. The point is, how large are you displaying your image? And please, don't start with the "you are always printing huge shots" every time as that won't wash.
2) Yes, DOF is important and one stop, especially at the wide end is very significant. In my mind it is one of two PRIMARY reasons for fast glass.
On a super wide angle lens, you are not going to see the big difference you state due to the inherent large DOF. Even if you are focusing at close range, say at 40cms, the DOF difference of 16mm lens between f2.8 and f4 is 10.4cm compared to 14.9cms! The fact is, the fall off of focus is still gradual in both cases and I cannot think of a situation where the difference makes a significant impact or a noticable impact at all.
3) I don't know what you shoot, but I'm often in a situation where my ISO is as high as I want it and I still need more speed to the point that even switching to FX would not help. I'm sure there are many on this forum who will say the same.
The only time speed is an issue is when you are trying to stop action and that is only one stop, ie f2.8 compared to f4 and as I said, this can be made up with a one stop move of the ISO. At all other times you have VR to assist you. That is the benefit of this lens.
The point I am trying to make is that the difference between these two lenses is not as great as people will try to make you believe. They are extremely minor at best and VR is a very useful inclusion on the 16-35.
Yes, VR is a very useful inclusion to the 16-35 (over the 17-35 for instance) but it does not replace shutter speed. That said, if they do come out with an f/2.8 version of the 16-35 or an updated 17-35, it should have VR too. Bad on Nikon if it does not.
For myself, I use aperature to control DOF, and I do see the difference between f/4 and f/2.8 even at shorter focal lengths. I have the 17-55 DX and I sure see it.
But, you do have a point with regards to cost, size, etc. between two such lenses ... is it worth it? In general, I say yes, you say no ... of course that is a good illustration of why having choices is a good thing! Either way, I hope Nikon makes a 16-35 f/2.8 AFS VR.