MichaelMann
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
I've recently ran through the wide-angle zoom challenge and settled for the Nikon 17-35, but it really depends what your priorities are - just like any other choice of gear.
The Tamron 17-35 was a good performer - good image quality, light and easy to carry, and relatively cheap - in fact, a relative bargain at under $300 used.
Next was the 20-35. Also, a good performer. Constant f2.8 is nice. AF speed is good, but not great. Also, small and portable. At 20mm, distortion is less pronounced than any of the 17s.
Then came the Nikon 14-24. Awesome performer. 14 is extremely wide (and fun) to shoot. Noticeably sharper in the corners. It's heavy and a little concerning to carry around with that big front element out there. Also, very expensive. I also found the range too short at only 24, which forced me to bring my 24-70 as well. The d700, plus those 2 pro zooms was just to heavy for my tastes - despite the awesome qualities.
Lastly, the Nikon 17-35. Fast focusing with excellent sharpness and contrast. Whether it's worth the extra $800 dollars or so then the Tammy, or $500 dollars more then the Nikon 20-35 is up to you.
I use this range to primarily shoot candids of my kids and relatively little architecture or landscape, so faster focus and faster aperture are more important to me. If shot more landscapes, the 14-24 would still be in bag, as it's tough to beat for sheer image quality.
Oh, one more thought, I also had a Sigma 12-24 on my 5D and that also, was really run to shoot. Crazy wide with excellent image quality, however it's a relatively slow lens in terms of aperture. Great for landscapes at 1/2 the price of the 14-24, but also inferior in terms of image quality.
|
