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

1
       2       end
  

Archive 2013 · What to use for WA on FX- CHOOSE OTHER IF YOU USE THE 16-...
  
 
cadman342001
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · What to use for WA on FX- CHOOSE OTHER IF YOU USE THE 16-35 VR !


Hi,

In the old days when shooting DX the Tokina 12-24 f4 and then 11-16 2.8 was the go or you could stay brand loyal and go with the Nikkor 10-20 or it's equivalent focal range wise the Siggy 10-20, or the old 17-35/2.8 if you had the cash and didn't want/need to go UWA.

Having just gone back to Nikon with D800E and looking to get back into landscapes/waterfalls/astro, I was wondering what people are using now on FX. It doesn't seem to be as clear cut to me as it was on DX.

What are you using and why, pros, cons. I have a friend at work still uses his Toki 11-16 and says it's fine and that he just doesn't use the 11 end. I'm presuming he's using it as a FX lens and not in DX crop mode. Any problems with this method ? I have had the 12-24/4 and the 11-16/2.8 and loved them both, for IQ and price.

I also love the old ais MF lenses, did I hear that the 20/2.8 isn't so hot ? not sure I want to go tighter than that eg 24/2.8 ? The old MF glass is not so cheap these days either is it !

Thanks in advance and hopefully this may help others too.

Andy



Edited on Mar 01, 2013 at 11:52 AM · View previous versions



Mar 01, 2013 at 03:45 AM
Nikon_14
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · What to use for WA on FX- CHOOSE OTHER IF YOU USE THE 16-35 VR !


You could also include the 16-35mm f/4 VR. But its drawback is that some say that w/ buildings, architecture, etc., things get "curved".

The drawback to the 14-24mm is that it can't take a circular polarizer filter. Yes, I know, they can have an uneven effect on a UWA lens in some conditions, but still, it's nice to have the option.

I had the 17-35mm... good glass, but no nano coating, in my estimation, made a difference that makes me look forward to an update. W/ its focal range, it certainly would be a good redundant/backup to my 24-70mm during weddings and other events.



Mar 01, 2013 at 03:57 AM
Nikon_14
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · What to use for WA on FX- CHOOSE OTHER IF YOU USE THE 16-35 VR !


Nikon_14 wrote:
You could also include the 16-35mm f/4 VR. But its drawback is that some say that w/ buildings, architecture, etc., things get "curved".

The drawback to the 14-24mm is that it can't take a circular polarizer filter. Yes, I know, they can have an uneven effect on a UWA lens in some conditions, but still, it's nice to have the option.

I had the 17-35mm... good glass, but no nano coating, in my estimation, made a difference that makes me look forward to an update. W/ its focal range, it certainly would be a good redundant/backup to my 24-70mm during weddings and
...Show more



Mar 01, 2013 at 03:59 AM
Two23
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · What to use for WA on FX- CHOOSE OTHER IF YOU USE THE 16-35 VR !


why would you buy an expensive camera like a D800 and then go cheap on the important thing--the lens? This makes no sense. Lenses have changed just as much as cameras have over the last 25 years. Shooting waterfalls? I'd buy a 24mm t/s. I love to shoot waterfalls myself, but mostly do it with 4x5. GTW, you seem to have forgotten the 16-35mm f4.


Kent in SD



Mar 01, 2013 at 04:08 AM
hijazist
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · What to use for WA on FX- CHOOSE OTHER IF YOU USE THE 16-35 VR !


I am currently using the Tamron 17-35 2.8-4. Excellent sharpness at f/5.8-f/8 and controls distortion very well though CA is obvious. Before that I had the Zeiss 21 2.8 and IMO it's the best lens I've ever used but I don't use that FL that much to justify the price. At $300 the Tamron can't be beat


Mar 01, 2013 at 04:10 AM
cadman342001
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · What to use for WA on FX- CHOOSE OTHER IF YOU USE THE 16-35 VR !


Nikon_14 wrote:
You could also include the 16-35mm f/4 VR. But its drawback is that some say that w/ buildings, architecture, etc., things get "curved".

The drawback to the 14-24mm is that it can't take a circular polarizer filter. Yes, I know, they can have an uneven effect on a UWA lens in some conditions, but still, it's nice to have the option.

I had the 17-35mm... good glass, but no nano coating, in my estimation, made a difference that makes me look forward to an update. W/ its focal range, it certainly would be a good redundant/backup to my 24-70mm during weddings and
...Show more

Exactly, I had the 14-24 in previous time using Nikon but the lack of filter ring was a deal breaker for me.

Re: 17-35 - and how long have we been / will we be waiting for an update ? I have had one sof these also and it is certainly a tank of a lens.

16-35 f4 VR - not familiar but thinking it's just a cheap 17-35 ? not a fan of curved buildings



Mar 01, 2013 at 04:18 AM
Gregg Heckler
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · What to use for WA on FX- CHOOSE OTHER IF YOU USE THE 16-35 VR !


16-35VR.


Mar 01, 2013 at 04:37 AM
cadman342001
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · What to use for WA on FX- CHOOSE OTHER IF YOU USE THE 16-35 VR !


Two23 wrote:
why would you buy an expensive camera like a D800 and then go cheap on the important thing--the lens? This makes no sense. Lenses have changed just as much as cameras have over the last 25 years. Shooting waterfalls? I'd buy a 24mm t/s. I love to shoot waterfalls myself, but mostly do it with 4x5. GTW, you seem to have forgotten the 16-35mm f4.

Kent in SD


Fair enough Kent but I didn't / haven't included / discounted anything due to cost, my poll was asking what people are using for a WA on FX. I'd like to know what is the best option and then I suppose I would be looking to make an informed decision based on others experiences.
It may be then that I decide I cannot afford say the 14-24 right now and may get a less expensive lens to use in the meantime until I can.

Also, I don't understand how you can critisize people for buying an expensive body and go cheap on the lens and then say I have forgotten the 16-35 f4 VR ?


Is this the same T/S lens that fred himself slated and said desperately needed updating in his comparison field review between the d800e and the 5D mkIII ?
Will look into it though so thanks.

As for 4x5 - sorry what large format ? I suppose you did at least tell me what you use even if I didn't expect it.

Loved the IQ of the 14-24 and may end up with one again, think it is indeed worth every penny but still the problem of the filters for slowing water effect / grad ND for landscapes.

Lens have changed over the last 25 years yes, true. I'm assuming you're talking about old school MF ais primes there ? How old the 17-35 2.8 is now ? I think that would be my choice if Nikon had got round to updating / nano coating that one but as they haven't I'm not sure. Maybe used but not new.



Mar 01, 2013 at 04:39 AM
kinconorb
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · What to use for WA on FX- CHOOSE OTHER IF YOU USE THE 16-35 VR !


I had a 14-24mm at one point and sold it, wish I had given it more of a chance - as I never used it much. I purchased mine when I switch from Canon (sold all my Canon gear) and just impulse purchased the lens so I could have the holy trinity 14-24, 24-70, 70-200. After selling the 14-24 I got into hiking and purchased a used 17-35/2.8, which I adore, stays on my camera almost exclusively. I'd like to maybe one day buy another 14-24, but for right now the 17-35 does the job! One other benefit of the 17-35 is the ease of filter use - even if you're just using a UV filter for protection.

What pissed me off with the 14-24 was the lens cap! I wish Nikon designed it more Canon's newer 14/2.8. Slip on lens caps are a complete fail.



Mar 01, 2013 at 05:08 AM
cadman342001
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · What to use for WA on FX- CHOOSE OTHER IF YOU USE THE 16-35 VR !


kinconorb wrote:
I had a 14-24mm at one point and sold it, wish I had given it more of a chance - as I never used it much. I purchased mine when I switch from Canon (sold all my Canon gear) and just impulse purchased the lens so I could have the holy trinity 14-24, 24-70, 70-200.

After selling the 14-24 I got into hiking and purchased a used 17-35/2.8, which I adore, stays on my camera almost exclusively. I'd like to maybe one day buy another 14-22, but for right now the 17-35 does the job! One other benefit of
...Show more

Exactly my experience too mate. The 16-35VR being spoken of seems to be nearly as exxy as the 14-24. The 17-35 is certainly a tank and yup being able to use the 72mm filters used on all the other pro nikons it good. Never had a problem with the IQ but mine didn't seem so hot AF wise in low light.

Andy



Mar 01, 2013 at 05:12 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



jhinkey
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · What to use for WA on FX- CHOOSE OTHER IF YOU USE THE 16-35 VR !


Still using the 17-35/2.8 AFS on my D800. It's still very very good and it's my go-to lens when I can stand the weight/size. Still has great flare/ghosting resistance.


Mar 01, 2013 at 05:54 AM
loudtiger
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · What to use for WA on FX- CHOOSE OTHER IF YOU USE THE 16-35 VR !


i'm looking at the new 18-35, or possibly the samyang 24 ts. need to see how both perform.


Mar 01, 2013 at 06:07 AM
bemyzeke
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · What to use for WA on FX- CHOOSE OTHER IF YOU USE THE 16-35 VR !


loudtiger wrote:
i'm looking at the new 18-35,


+1



Mar 01, 2013 at 06:25 AM
bemyzeke
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #14 · What to use for WA on FX- CHOOSE OTHER IF YOU USE THE 16-35 VR !


Tokina 17-35 f/4 and 16-28 f/2.8 are also very good options.


Mar 01, 2013 at 06:31 AM
cadman342001
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #15 · What to use for WA on FX- CHOOSE OTHER IF YOU USE THE 16-35 VR !


All good, keep 'em comin !


Mar 01, 2013 at 06:59 AM
EltonTeng
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · What to use for WA on FX- CHOOSE OTHER IF YOU USE THE 16-35 VR !


I used the 14-24 on my D700 and sold it because I was using it twice a year. I now use an older 20/3.5 AIS as my UWA.

The 14-24 is an awesome lens. It just looks ridiculous when using it in a street setting.



Mar 01, 2013 at 07:26 AM
penghai
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #17 · What to use for WA on FX- CHOOSE OTHER IF YOU USE THE 16-35 VR !


I think not making 16-35 into the list makes this poll a lot less useful to most people.




Mar 01, 2013 at 07:35 AM
Chris Dees
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · What to use for WA on FX- CHOOSE OTHER IF YOU USE THE 16-35 VR !


The 14-24 was my best not-used lens. Before the 16-35 I had 3 copies of the 17-35 and never liked them. One copy had the "squeak" and costed me 350. I never was satisfied with the corner sharpness. Since the 16-35 my problems are "solved" The vignetting and distortion on the wide side are a non-issue for me as it is automatically corrected in LR.


Mar 01, 2013 at 08:02 AM
BlueBull
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · What to use for WA on FX- CHOOSE OTHER IF YOU USE THE 16-35 VR !


I'm using the 16-35 F4 VR.
Agree with penghai.



Mar 01, 2013 at 09:31 AM
zacheryjensen
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #20 · What to use for WA on FX- CHOOSE OTHER IF YOU USE THE 16-35 VR !


For landscapes? I use 16-35mm f/4, 24mm PC-E, and 70-200mm f/4.

I fix distortion in post, especially for the 16-35.



Mar 01, 2013 at 10:06 AM
1
       2       end




FM Forums | Nikon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1
       2       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password