Corners are good at F8. Not razor sharp but then again its a wide angle. As good as the Nikon 14-24 at 17mm in my humble opinion after shooting both on the same body. No vignetting which does occur wide open and also using a low profile ND filter. No this is not HDR. Its a single exposure. I did bring the exposure down a bit. I can say that there is a focus sweet spot with this lens that takes practice to hit.
Glad to see this lens is working for you. I had this lens with my old 5d2. It worked great at 18-35mm at f stops normally used for landscape. I ended up getting the 16-28 when I got my d800. Sharp yes...but big and heavy, and no filter capability. I'm thinking you made the right choice.
Wonderful photo. I have the same lens and think highly of it. I thought about the other choices too but could not bring myself to venture out without a filter on my lens.
These are great -- I have been really thinking about this lens for my D600, since it is smaller than similar lenses. For my uses as a landscape lens it looks pretty good, any other feedback on this lens would definitely be appreciated.
Paul
I have this lens with the D600. I love the size, weight and that it takes filters (although 82mm). I compared it to the Tokina 16-28 and was satisfied with the performance. I think with all of the well deserved praise for the Tokina 16-28, Nikon 16-35 and 14-24 this lens is a bit of a sleeper. I've owned the 16-35 before and I think this lens is comparable if you don't need VR and are ok with the larger filter size.
RobCD wrote:
I have this lens with the D600. I love the size, weight and that it takes filters (although 82mm). I compared it to the Tokina 16-28 and was satisfied with the performance. I think with all of the well deserved praise for the Tokina 16-28, Nikon 16-35 and 14-24 this lens is a bit of a sleeper. I've owned the 16-35 before and I think this lens is comparable if you don't need VR and are ok with the larger filter size.
I've been almost painfully mulling over this one and the Nikon 16-35 over the last month. The price of the Tokina is extremely tempting, but I don't like the fact that it takes 82mm filters (would have to get a new CPL and a new Lee adapter, but that'd still end up being cheaper than the Nikon). My big concern was mainly the smear factor in the corners, as I shoot low-to-the-ground wide angle landscapes a lot. I shot both the Tokina and the Nikon at my local shop (I should have shot in a more regimented way though) and the Nikon's corners did look sharper, certainly more distorted, but over all a little better than the Tokina. I'm not convinced it's $600 better though.
Disappointingly there haven't been any real in-depth comparisons of the two lenses - Rockwell's sentiment that the Tokina is sharper than the Nikon 17-35/2.8 but less sharp than the 16-35 is a bit helpful but given his knack for....being Rockwell, I have to take that with a grain of salt. But of the reviews I've seen of the Tokina, as much as I keep thinking I've settled on just ponying up and getting the Nikon, I keep second guessing. The whole VR module infra-red light bleeding issue with the 16-35 is definitely not working in its favor either. I would greatly appreciate any additional thoughts and/or experiences comparing and contrasting the two to help push me in one direction or the other.
tokina 17-35 is super sharp WO at F/4.i compare it with nikon 20-35mm and 20-35 is as sharp at f8 as tokina at f/4.20-35 sold.still waiting to arrives nikon 28mm f/2.8AIS and leica R 28mm 2.8 V2 ,want compare those lenses. BryanSwan wrote:
I've been almost painfully mulling over this one and the Nikon 16-35 over the last month. The price of the Tokina is extremely tempting, but I don't like the fact that it takes 82mm filters (would have to get a new CPL and a new Lee adapter, but that'd still end up being cheaper than the Nikon). My big concern was mainly the smear factor in the corners, as I shoot low-to-the-ground wide angle landscapes a lot. I shot both the Tokina and the Nikon at my local shop (I should have shot in a more regimented way though) and the Nikon's corners did look sharper, certainly more distorted, but over all a little better than the Tokina. I'm not convinced it's $600 better though.
Disappointingly there haven't been any real in-depth comparisons of the two lenses - Rockwell's sentiment that the Tokina is sharper than the Nikon 17-35/2.8 but less sharp than the 16-35 is a bit helpful but given his knack for....being Rockwell, I have to take that with a grain of salt. But of the reviews I've seen of the Tokina, as much as I keep thinking I've settled on just ponying up and getting the Nikon, I keep second guessing. The whole VR module infra-red light bleeding issue with the 16-35 is definitely not working in its favor either. I would greatly appreciate any additional thoughts and/or experiences comparing and contrasting the two to help push me in one direction or the other....Show more →
