For some reason I'm seeing purple tonight. Maybe its time for a beer, this is the 2nd post tonight. Anybody see what looks like obvious fringing on the brush in the lower left hand corner?
Perhaps the great love for the 16-35 will drive the price of the 17-35 down. Because the 17-35 is such a piece of shit, nobody could every make an acceptable image with it ;-)
Anyone got any wedding or group portraits shot with this lens ? looks really exciting for my style of work just having problems tracking one down in the uk
Photo197726 wrote:
Perhaps the great love for the 16-35 will drive the price of the 17-35 down. Because the 17-35 is such a piece of shit, nobody could every make an acceptable image with it ;-)
Yes, the 17-35 needs to be selling for around $600 at this point...
Are you guys with 16-35vr still enjoying your lenses ?
Did any of you compared Nikon 16-35 to Sigma 12-24 ?
And yes, i know about sigma not taking any filters, but i am interested in sharpness and distortion differences between the two.
Any info appreciated.
Well I have a ton of shots from both the 16-35vr now and of course I have a lot of 14-24 files to compare it to since I own them both. At first I thought I was pretty happy since I could use a polarizer for my 16-35, I was going to sell the 14-24, but something kept me putting it off a little longer.
Yesterday I realized 3 things. #1 I have a ton of 16-35vr shots that I really wish were 14mm. #2 Either I really suck at using a polarizer with an UWA when the sun is high above me or polarizers are pretty limited on their usefulness according to the position of the sun relative to your shooting position. The sky looks really messed up in a ton of my shots, it looks less natural than a roasted HDR and I cannot recover such dark blue in one section of the sky that blends well with the normal looking part of the sky #3 I really enjoy supreme corner sharpness on an UWA and the 14-24 isn't just a little sharper, it is A LOT sharper on the edges at all apertures compared to the 16-35. It isn't that the 16-35 is that bad compared to other lenses; the 14-24 is just really THAT good.
I decided that I will get rid of the 16-35 and keep the 14-24. There are a lot more options to put together your own square filter holder for the 14-24, and then I can still retain the use of graduated filters. I cannot say that I didn't see this coming. The initial group of people on this forum that bought the 16-35 turned around and listed it on the B&S forum shortly after.
Well, I bust my 17-35mm and the insurance company are sending me a new one - £1700 in the UK!!!
Did I want the 16-35mm? Maybe, but the 2.8 is very useful in low light, for focusing alone.
