I am thinking of jumping to a D600 soon and really want a wide angle that extends to 16mm while retaining F2.8. The F4 of the 16-35 is a deal breaker for me, and the lack of filter threads on the 14-24 are a deal breaker for that lens. The 17-35/F2.8 is out there of course, but no weather sealing and 17mm is not 16mm. Will the patented 16-35 F2.8 likely come to fruition in 2013 or would Nikon never dream of it because of the competition with their current two top of the line FX wide angles?

Not sure why f4 is a deal breaker on an ultra-wide as you already have too much DOF for most narrow focus stuff even at f2.8. If a fast wide is really needed then perhaps considering supplementing the f4 ( just got one - a very nice and useful lens) zoom with a f1.8 or f1.4 prime so that you get decent sharpness along with reduced DOF.

Mainly I need the F2.8 for the faster shutter speeds I often need where f4 won't cut it and VR is of no help in freezing action.

Also though, I do find that when shooting at the wide end and close focusing on a subject, there actually is subject isolation possible with an UWA. Obviously we're not talking portrait stuff, but still noticeble. Like for fly fishing mags that I sell to, they love wide shots close focused on a fish's face with the angler in soft focus in the background. Makes for a great effect that is certainly enhanced by f2.8 over f4 (I shoot DX now and realize FX has shallower depth of field which is a draw to invest in FX, so don't want to spend the money to go from Tokina 11-16/2.8 to Nikkor 16-35f4 and not get that gain in shallower DOF ability).

Your suggestion is a good one and I would like to invest in the 24/1.4 as well, but it doesn't have 16/17 wide end and when shooting a zoom at that wide end I want that f2.8 over f4! The 17-35/2.8 sounds like a damn nice lens and as Nikon shooters were lucky to have so many options, but if the patented 16-35/2.8 is likely to become a reality then I would be bummed to buy a 17-35 that would likely drop in value as soon as it was discontinued upon the new lens release....

what are you using on dx?

nikon 16mm 2.d
rokinon 14mm
zeiss 15mm

Consider that a 16-35/2.8VR would likely be larger and heavier than the 14-24, and well north of $2000 (could easily be $3000). Would that change your calculations?

I don't mean to sound obnoxious, but as with your thread about a 135/1.4, it seems like you're engaged in speculations twice removed, given that you haven't shot with either FX or with the relevant lens options that currently exist. That condition (which I've often been in myself), can lead you to tie yourself in knots about possible purchases, some of which are simply vaporware. If you take a bit more measured approach (possibly by moving to FX and then shooting with the existing options), you might dispel some of that anxiety and speculation.

There are important differences between the 16-35/4 and the 17-35/2.8 (obviously the VR and maximum aperture, but also optical differences), but you've identified things that are vanishingly insignificant: 16mm vs. 17mm, and weather sealing. That suggests you need more experience shooting with one or both, to give you a better sense of what matters, and what doesn't.

I don't think 1mm matters all that much. If you're hell bent on f/2.8 and filter-capability, then the 17-35 f/2.8 is your answer. It's an outstanding lens.

If you think 17 isn't wide enough, then 16 won't magically be 'good', and you should be looking at a 14-24 or that crazy Sigma.

The difference between f/4 and f/2.8 is rather significant in terms of light gathering. In terms of depth of field, it's not really mind blowing. If you want good separation, the 24 1.4 is the lens to go to. It's one of Nikon's crown jewels, in my opinion. The corners aren't awesome, but the center is dreadfully sharp.

I would not worry about the 17-35 dropping in value. In many shooters kits it's already been supplanted by the 14-24 and 16-35. Not saying they don't all have their niche, they do. Of the 3 current options the 17-35 is certainly best for certain usage scenarios. Nikon has had a patent for a 50mm f/1.2 AF-S lens for a long time... we still haven't seen it... don't hold your breath.

Nikon release an affordable f/4 lens before the cash cow f/2.8...


HAHA ... not the Nikon I know, they do just the opposite

No, Nikon will update 17-35 2.8 soon.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Smiert Spionam wrote:
Consider that a 16-35/2.8VR would likely be larger and heavier than the 14-24, and well north of $2000 (could easily be $3000). Would that change your calculations?

I don't mean to sound obnoxious, but as with your thread about a 135/1.4, it seems like you're engaged in speculations twice removed, given that you haven't shot with either FX or with the relevant lens options that currently exist. That condition (which I've often been in myself), can lead you to tie yourself in knots about possible purchases, some of which are simply vaporware. If you take a bit more measured approach (possibly by moving to FX and then shooting with the existing options), you might dispel some of that anxiety and speculation.

There are important differences between the 16-35/4 and the 17-35/2.8 (obviously the VR and maximum aperture, but also optical differences), but you've identified things that are vanishingly insignificant: 16mm vs. 17mm, and weather sealing. That suggests you need more experience shooting with one or both, to give you a better sense of what matters, and what doesn't.

you're oh so right that it becomes too easy (for me especially!) to get too concerned with lenses that are still in the patent/rumor stage when they may never come. At $3,000 that would be out of my league...I was thinking $2,000 retail and less than that used. I don't think weather sealing is insignificant...even just a rubber gasket at the mount is critical to me at times and I have had a way too close call on a lens without that rubber seal before. That being said, it is solid advice to not get tied up in knots over lenses that don't exist yet. I am just really torn about whether I should replace my 2nd D7000 with a D600 or stay with two DX bodies, and struggling to figure out if the available glass for my shooting applications makes it worthwhile to go to FX. cheers -L

Going

I consider myself at best an intermediate skill photographer, and I've never used full frame. But, I've weighed full frame's pros and cons for my photography, and part of my real job is helping people with decision making, so I'll jump in.

In your case, since you sell images, the bottom line is do you think an FX purchase (along with all the accessories) will make you more money than you spend on them in the next 3-4 years? If so, then the answer is an easy yes.

A number of magazine editors may like the fact that you bring them 24mp files (were that the case, these folks would like it even better if you brought them 36mp files ), notwithstanding that I might argue such big files are unnecessary for magazines. Beyond that, the only benefit they might get from you bringing them FX photos is improved subjective image quality. Do you think you can wring more subjective image quality out of FX shots than D7000 shots in or current or future shooting conditions?

A thread on Nikonians suggests that the D600/800 gain only 1 stop better noise/dynamic range performance at high ISOs over the D7000. The data is persuasive to me, but even were it not I doubt the advantage would be more than 2 stops.

You know what wide zoom lenses exist and their pros and cons. Unfortunately you can't have your cake and eat it here, and even if a 16-35 f/2.8 VR existed again the weight and price would present a different set of problems. Unfortunately, it would seem to me that you just have to pick which lens provides you with the least amount of disadvantages. I could see the argument going for either the 16-35 VR or the 17-35 f/2.8 - the VR vs. 2.8 tradeoff is one only you can decide based on your experience. (I do landscapes so, as long as they're sharp, I don't really care about VR or large apertures. I do care about weight and especially bulk, since those can kill my appetite for bringing a camera or taking a picture in any given situation)

I'm told the Tokina will work at 16mm on full frame cameras. Keeping that for the time you really need 16mm might be a worthwhile option.

As an alternate suggestion: have you considered the Nikon or Sigma 35mm f/1.4 (which is cheaper and according to what I've heard so far better)? You say you often take pictures of fish in focus with fishermen out of focus with a wide angle. The 35mm would distort the fish less, and theoretically provide more DOF, especially on full frame. If you took this kind of picture a lot, this alone IMO would justify going FF.

Lance B wrote:


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.

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.

Spoken like someone who does not shoot indoor sports/rock concerts etc... Your "very few instances" are my "every weekend"... It is shortsighted to imply that your photo needs are inherently someone else's. That being said, I have a rockin' 17-35 2.8 that is fast, sharp and low distortion. I couldn't imagine Nikon improving much on this lens, except perhaps to make it a little wider.

MarcG19 wrote:
Going

I consider myself at best an intermediate skill photographer, and I've never used full frame. But, I've weighed full frame's pros and cons for my photography, and part of my real job is helping people with decision making, so I'll jump in.

In your case, since you sell images, the bottom line is do you think an FX purchase (along with all the accessories) will make you more money than you spend on them in the next 3-4 years? If so, then the answer is an easy yes.

A number of magazine editors may like the fact that you bring them 24mp files (were that the case, these folks would like it even better if you brought them 36mp files ), notwithstanding that I might argue such big files are unnecessary for magazines. Beyond that, the only benefit they might get from you bringing them FX photos is improved subjective image quality. Do you think you can wring more subjective image quality out of FX shots than D7000 shots in or current or future shooting conditions?

A thread on Nikonians suggests that the D600/800 gain only 1 stop better noise/dynamic range performance at high ISOs over the D7000. The data is persuasive to me, but even were it not I doubt the advantage would be more than 2 stops.

You know what wide zoom lenses exist and their pros and cons. Unfortunately you can't have your cake and eat it here, and even if a 16-35 f/2.8 VR existed again the weight and price would present a different set of problems. Unfortunately, it would seem to me that you just have to pick which lens provides you with the least amount of disadvantages. I could see the argument going for either the 16-35 VR or the 17-35 f/2.8 - the VR vs. 2.8 tradeoff is one only you can decide based on your experience. (I do landscapes so, as long as they're sharp, I don't really care about VR or large apertures. I do care about weight and especially bulk, since those can kill my appetite for bringing a camera or taking a picture in any given situation)

I'm told the Tokina will work at 16mm on full frame cameras. Keeping that for the time you really need 16mm might be a worthwhile option.

As an alternate suggestion: have you considered the Nikon or Sigma 35mm f/1.4 (which is cheaper and according to what I've heard so far better)? You say you often take pictures of fish in focus with fishermen out of focus with a wide angle. The 35mm would distort the fish less, and theoretically provide more DOF, especially on full frame. If you took this kind of picture a lot, this alone IMO would justify going FF.


Thanks for your thoughtful reply Marc, whatever your real job is it definitely comes through! I'll share a bit more about my situation...I am just finishing college (2 weeks left) which means that of course budget is always a concern. During college I have been a staff photographer for the university newspaper, and then sold a lot of travel/fly fishing photography to different magazines which pays far better, but because of the cost of the fishing trips I enjoy so much I am basically paying for my trip (airfare, gas, etc) and not profiting most of the time. It has been great to be regularly published, but I think that I could have pulled it all off with pretty modest gear.

I am now at a point though where I am looking to take my photography to the next level and pursue it as a career, but nothing is very certain right now. I have applied for paid photo internships with the Seattle Times and SF Gate for this coming summer, and if I got one of those positions and continued on to pursue photojournalism professionally then FX pro gear would be a no brainer. If that all doesn't come through and I head a different direction for the time being, then photography might be sidelined to earning maybe $2,500-$3,000 per year for fly fishing mags and the investment would make little sense. The prudent thing to probably do is wait 6 months or a year and figure out what level I will be involved with photography at and proceed from there...i'm just so passionate about it and enjoy it so much that the patience does not come easily and the excitement of a camera like the D600 is tough to avoid (though I do love my D7000s).

As to a 35/1.4, both the Nikon and Sigma offerings look good for sure. I am skipping the 35mm focal range though, as I got a great deal on a sigma 50mm F1.4 and then couldn't resist another pretty awesome deal on a Nikon 24mm F1.4. I wanted the 24 because the wider the better lots of times, and 24 and 35 would be too close together to justify having both for me. Of course with a D600 the versatility of the 24/1.4 would be amazing, plus I could sell the 50/1.4 and invest in an 85/1.4 which would give me a similar FOV and better subject isolation on the D600 and then a totally new perspective when shot on DX. I dig the way you can own way less lenses with a DX/FX combo because of the changes in FOV. A lot to think about...I probably just need to sit back and wait for a while! Best to just shoot with the awesome gear I've already invested in and not get caught up in D600 lust for the time being.

best -L

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. 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.

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, going from 3200 to 6400 is a HUGE deal.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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, going from 3200 to 6400 is a HUGE deal.

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.

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.


Yep. +1.

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.

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.