for my F5 . Before I get back into digital and buy a "new" body, I want to pick up a superb lens. If the results blow me away, the DSLR may have to wait until next spring...
So I shoot mostly landscapes, so a fast lens is not at the top of my needs' list - however shooting star trails on film is something I REALLY want to do and try for fun. I only have one lens right now, and it is the amazing Tokina 17mm 3.5 RMC lens.
The Nikon 16-35mm seems to get rave reviews. My buddy has it, so I could possibly use it before buying. I have always wanted to check out Zeiss. either the 18mm or 21mm. Obviously I would love to try out the Nikon 14-24 as well. I have not owned a filter of any type since like 2010, so no problems there.
My objective is to see how much better my results will be with film than it is now. I am stoked with the quality I am getting from the F5 + Tokina 17mm + Fuji Reala/Pro 160S. Can only imagine will get better with better glass.
Was also thinking about the Samyang 14mm as well, as the Rokinon 85 1,4 was superb.
Supposedly the sigma 70mm 2.8 macro is about as sharp as you're going to get. I've read people saying it beats some nikon/cannon fast primes. Supposedly great on d800, a demanding body.
Autofocus isn't grand... but then again, it's cheap. (<300 used) You buy it for great IQ.
love my 16-35 VR, lighter, less expensive than the 14-24 ..although it appears there is a consensus that the 14-24 is one of Nikon's all time greatest lenses...I went with the 16-35 for the aforementioned benefits and don't regret it one bit
Kell wrote:
love my 16-35 VR, lighter, less expensive than the 14-24 ..although it appears there is a consensus that the 14-24 is one of Nikon's all time greatest lenses...I went with the 16-35 for the aforementioned benefits and don't regret it one bit
dont forget the one huge problem with the 14-24, the ease of use with filters. Thats why I'll never own another 14-24. I'd opt for the 16-35, and maybe pick up a 28G or 85G
Samyang is releasing a 28mm tilt/shift that I am excited about. Probably in February. I have the 16-35 and it is a great lens, but if you dont use filters I would say 14-24 all the way. Good luck!
BenV wrote:
dont forget the one huge problem with the 14-24, the ease of use with filters. Thats why I'll never own another 14-24. I'd opt for the 16-35, and maybe pick up a 28G or 85G quote<<<
I have never needed or wanted a filter for my 14-24.
As for the 16-35, I sent it back and like the 17-35 better.
I would rather have f/2.8 than VR
. Before I get back into digital and buy a "new" body, I want to pick up a superb lens. If the results blow me away, the DSLR may have to wait until next spring...