I am trying to decide what my wife should buy me for Christmas.
I have a 17-40L F4 and 5dii. It live in the mountains and need ultra wide for 2/3 of my landscape shots. I do lots of long hikes (20km) in summer with my tripod with 17-40, 24-105.[I also have 7d, 17-55, 24-105, 70-200 2.8 IS I, 100-400 and 500F4 but that\'s another story.] Landscape photography is my serious hobby (addiction).
Often I find that:
17mm is too long
17-40 is not strong iq at 17mm even at f11 on edges. Usable but way better at 20mm.
17-40 is not good inside because not 2.8 (lessor importance)
but it is light, small and versatile in zoom.
I am debating buying between:
16-35L 2.8 - $1600 would be twice as fast and similar IQ
14L 2.8 - $2200 would be twice as fast and better IQ and more wide but is prime so likely only use 25% of time
TS-17 F4 - $2500 would have better IQ than all of the above but is prime so likely only use 25% of time
Nikor 14-24 2.8 $1700 with adapter - has right range, is good IQ, but no auto focus, no metering
Money is not the prime concern. In order of preference IQ = most important, 2nd/3rd is wider/versatility, and last is speed because it is for landscape.
I tried 17 TS and found it to be fussy for tilt. It would not be any wider than 17-40L.
The Nikkor 14-24 is ideal range for versatility but fussing with manual exposure might be a pain
I have read that 16-35 is similar in IQ to 17-40 but at f8,f11,f16 not much different which is 99% of my shots for depth. So only better inside on the rare occasion I use it with my 5dii. I have 17-55 for 7d..
14mm I am not as familiar with but is reputed to sharper and it would be faster and wider but not as versatile.
My impression is that Nikor 14-24 sharpest zoom. TS-17 is best IQ, then Nikkor 14-24, 14mm, and 16-35 way behind.
Any advice? Will I notice the difference between any of these and 17-40 at F8 or F11?
I am inclined toward 14-24 Nikkor for the combination of IQ and 12-24 versatility. With TS-17 in 2nd place for IQ and verstility of Tilt.
I am trying to decide what my wife should buy me for Christmas.
I have a 17-40L F4 and 5dii. It live in the mountains and need ultra wide for 2/3 of my landscape shots. I do lots of long hikes (20km) in summer with my tripod with 17-40, 24-105.[I also have 7d, 17-55, 24-105, 70-200 2.8 IS I, 100-400 and 500F4 but that\'s another story.] Landscape photography is my serious hobby (addiction).
Often I find that:
17mm is too long
17-40 is not strong iq at 17mm even at f11 on edges. Usable but way better at 20mm.
17-40 is not good inside because not 2.8 (lessor importance)
but it is light, small and versatile in zoom.
I am debating buying between:
16-35L 2.8 - $1600 would be twice as fast and similar IQ
14L 2.8 - $2200 would be twice as fast and better IQ and more wide but is prime so likely only use 25% of time
TS-17 F4 - $2500 would have better IQ than all of the above but is prime so likely only use 25% of time
Nikor 14-24 2.8 $17000 with adapter - has right range, is good IQ, but no auto focus, no metering
Money is not the prime concern. In order of preference IQ = most important, 2nd/3rd is wider/versatility, and last is speed because it is for landscape.
I tried 17 TS and found it to be fussy for tilt. It would not be any wider than 17-40L.
The Nikkor 14-24 is ideal range for versatility but fussing with manual exposure might be a pain
I have read that 16-35 is similar in IQ to 17-40 but at f8,f11,f16 not much different which is 99% of my shots for depth. So only better inside on the rare occasion I use it with my 5dii. I have 17-55 for 7d..
14mm I am not as familiar with but is reputed to sharper and it would be faster and wider but not as versatile.
My impression is that Nikor 14-24 sharpest zoom. TS-17 is best IQ, then Nikkor 14-24, 14mm, and 16-35 way behind.
Any advice? Will I notice the difference between any of these and 17-40 at F8 or F11?
I am inclined toward 14-24 Nikkor for the combination of IQ and 12-24 versatility. With TS-17 in 2nd place for IQ and verstility of Tilt.
I am trying to decide what my wife should buy me for Christmas.
I have a 17-40L F4 and 5dii. It live in the mountains and need ultra wide for 2/3 of my landscape shots. I do lots of long hikes (20km) in summer with my tripod with 17-40, 24-105.[I also have 7d, 17-55, 24-105, 70-200 2.8 IS I, 100-400 and 500F4 but that\'s another story.] Landscape photography is my serious hobby (addiction).
Often I find that:
17mm is too long
17-40 is not strong iq at 17mm even at f11 on edges. Usable but way better at 20mm.
17-40 is not good inside because not 2.8 (lessor importance)
but it is light, small and versatile in zoom.
I am debating buying between:
16-35L 2.8 - $1600 would be twice as fast and similar IQ
14L 2.8 - $2200 would be twice as fast and better IQ and more wide but is prime so likely only use 25% of time
TS-17 F4 - $2500 would have better IQ than all of the above but is prime so likely only use 25% of time
Nikor 14-24 2.8 $17000 with adapter - has right range, is good IQ, but no auto focus, no metering
Money is not the prime concern. In order of preference IQ = most important, 2nd/3rd is wider/versatility, and last is speed because it is for landscape.
I tried 17 TS and found it to be fussy for tilt. It would not be any wider than 17-40L.
The Nikkor 14-24 is ideal range for versatility but fussing with manual exposure might be a pain
I have read that 16-35 is similar in IQ to 17-40 but at f8,f11,f16 not much different which is 99% of my shots for depth. So only better inside on the rare occasion I use it with my 7d.
14mm I am not as familiar with but is reputed to sharper and it would be faster and wider but not as versatile.
My impression is that Nikor 14-24 sharpest zoom. TS-17 is best IQ, then Nikkor 14-24, 14mm, and 16-35 way behind.
Any advice? Will I notice the difference between any of these and 17-40 at F8 or F11?
I am inclined toward 14-24 Nikkor for the combination of IQ and 12-24 versatility. With TS-17 in 2nd place for IQ and verstility of Tilt.
I am trying to decide what my wife should buy me for Christmas.
I have a 17-40L F4 and 5dii. It live in the mountains and need ultra wide for 2/3 of my landscape shots. I do lots of long hikes (20km) in summer with my tripod with 17-40, 24-105.[I also have 7d, 17-55, 24-105, 70-200 2.8 IS I, 100-400 and 500F4 but that\'s another story.] Landscape photography is my serious hobby (addiction).
Often I find that:
17mm is too long
17-40 is not strong iq at 17mm even at f11 on edges. Usable but way better at 20mm.
17-40 is not good inside because not 2.8 (lessor importance)
but it is light, small and versatile in zoom.
I am debating buying between:
16-35L 2.8 - $1600 would be twice as fast and similar IQ
14L 2.8 - $2200 would be twice as fast and better IQ and more wide but is prime so likely only use 25% of time
TS-17 F4 - $2500 would have better IQ than all of the above but is prime so likely only use 25% of time
Nikor 14-24 2.8 $17000 with adapter - has right range, is good IQ, but no auto focus, no metering
Money is not the prime concern. In order of preference IQ = most important, 2nd/3rd is wider/versatility, and last is speed because it is for landscape.
I tried 17 TS and found it to be fussy for tilt. It would not be any wider than 17-40L.
The Nikkor 14-24 is ideal range for versatility but fussing with manual exposure might be a pain
I have read that 16-35 is similar in IQ to 17-40 but at f8,f11,f16 not much different which is 99% of my shots for depth. So only better inside on the rare occasion I use it with my 7d.
14mm I am not as familiar with but is reputed to sharper and it would be faster and wider but not as versatile.
My impression is that Nikor 12-24 sharpest zoom. TS-17 is best IQ, then Nikkor 14-24, 14mm, and 16-35 way behind.
Any advice? Will I notice the difference between any of these and 17-40 at F8 or F11?
I am inclined toward 14-24 Nikkor for the combination of IQ and 12-24 versatility. With TS-17 in 2nd place for IQ and verstility of Tilt.
I am trying to decide what my wife should buy me for Christmas.
I have a 17-40L F4 and 5dii. It live in the mountains and need ultra wide for 2/3 of my landscape shots. I do lots of long hikes (20km) in summer with my tripod with 17-40, 24-105.[I also have 7d, 17-55, 24-105, 70-200 2.8 IS I, 100-400 and 500F4 but that\'s another story.] Landscape photography is my serious hobby (addiction).
Often I find that:
17mm is too long
17-40 is not strong iq at 17mm even at f11 on edges. Usable but way better at 20mm.
17-40 is not good inside because not 2.8 (lessor importance)
but it is light, small and versatile in zoom.
I am debating buying between:
16-35L 2.8 - $1600 would be twice as fast and similar IQ
14L 2.8 - $2200 would be twice as fast and better IQ and more wide but is prime so likely only use 25% of time
TS-17 F4 - $2500 would have better IQ than all of the above but is prime so likely only use 25% of time
Nikor 14-24 2.8 $17000 with adapter - has right range, is good IQ, but no auto focus, no metering
Money is not the prime concern. In order of preference IQ = most important, 2nd/3rd is wider/versatility, and last is speed because it is for landscape.
I tried 17 TS and found it to be fussy for tilt. It would not be any wider than 17-40L.
The Nikkor 14-24 is ideal range for versatility but fussing with manual exposure might be a pain
I have read that 16-35 is similar in IQ to 17-40 but at f8,f11,f16 not much different which is 99% of my shots for depth. So only better inside on the rare occasion I use it with my 7d.
14mm I am not as familiar with but is reputed to sharper and it would be faster and wider but not as versatile.
My impression is that Nikor 12-24 sharpest zoom. TS-17 is best IQ, then Nikkor 14-24, 14mm, and 16-35 way behind.
Any advice? Will I notice the difference between any of these and 17-40 at F8 or F11?
I am inclined toward 14-24 Nikkor for the combination of IQ and 12-24 versatility. With TS-17 in 2nd place for IQ and verstility of Tilt.
I am trying to decide what my wife should buy me for Christmas.
I have a 17-40L F4 and 5dii. It live in the mountains and need ultra wide for 2/3 of my landscape shots. I do lots of long hikes (20km) in summer with my tripod with 17-40, 24-105.[I also have 7d, 17-55, 24-105, 70-200 2.8 IS I, 100-400 and 500F4 but that\'s another story.] Landscape photography is my serious hobby (addiction).
Often I find that:
17mm is too long
17-40 is not strong iq at 17mm even at f11 on edges. Usable but way better at 20mm.
17-40 is not good inside because not 2.8 (lessor importance)
but it is light, small and versatile in zoom.
I am debating buying between:
16-35L 2.8 - $1600 would be twice as fast and similar IQ
14L 2.8 - $2200 would be twice as fast and better IQ and more wide but is prime so likely only use 25% of time
TS-17 F4 - $2500 would have better IQ than all of the above but is prime so likely only use 25% of time
Nikor 12-24 2.8 $17000 with adapter - has right range, is good IQ, but no auto focus, no metering
Money is not the prime concern. In order of preference IQ = most important, 2nd/3rd is wider/versatility, and last is speed because it is for landscape.
I tried 17 TS and found it to be fussy for tilt. It would not be any wider than 17-40L.
The Nikkor 12-24 is ideal range for versatility but fussing with manual exposure might be a pain
I have read that 16-35 is similar in IQ to 17-40 but at f8,f11,f16 not much different which is 99% of my shots for depth. So only better inside on the rare occasion I use it with my 7d.
14mm I am not as familiar with but is reputed to sharper and it would be faster and wider but not as versatile.
My impression is that Nikor 12-24 sharpest zoom. TS-17 is best IQ, then Nikkor 12-24, 14mm, and 16-35 way behind.
Any advice? Will I notice the difference between any of these and 17-40 at F8 or F11?
I am inclined toward 12-24 Nikkor for the combination of IQ and 12-24 versatility. With TS-17 in 2nd place for IQ and verstility of Tilt.
I am trying to decide what my wife should buy me for Christmas.
I have a 17-40L F4 and 5dii. It live in the mountains and need ultra wide for 2/3 of my landscape shots. I do lots of long hikes (20km) in summer with my tripod with 17-40, 24-105.[I also have 7d, 17-55, 24-105, 70-200 2.8 IS I, 100-400 and 500F4 but that\'s another story.] Landscape photography is my serious hobby (addiction).
Often I find that:
17mm is too long
17-40 is not strong iq at 17mm even at f11 on edges. Usable but way better at 20mm.
17-40 is not good inside because not 2.8 (lessor importance)
but it is light, small and versatile in zoom.
I am debating buying between:
16-35L 2.8 - $1600 would be twice as fast and similar IQ
14L 2.8 - $2200 would be twice as fast and better IQ and more wide but is prime so likely only use 25% of time
TS-17 F4 - $2500 would have better IQ than all of the above but is prime so likely only use 25% of time
Nikor 12-24 2.8 $17000 with adapter - has right range, is good IQ, but no auto focus, no metering
Money is not the prime concern. In order of preference IQ = most important, 2nd/3rd is wider/versatility, and last is speed because it is for landscape.
I tried 17 TS and found it to be fussy for tilt. It would not be any wider than 17-40L.
The Nikkor 12-24 is ideal range for versatility but fussing with manual exposure might be a pain
I have read that 16-35 is similar in IQ to 17-40 but at f8,f11,f16 not much different which is 99% of my shots for depth. So only better inside on the rare occasion I use it with my 7d.
14mm I am not as familiar with but is reputed to sharper and it would be faster and wider but not as versatile.
My impression is that Nikor 12-24 sharpest zoom. TS-17 is best IQ, then Nikkor 12-24, 14mm, and 16-35 way behind.
Any advice? Will I notice the difference between any of these and 17-40 at F8 or F11?
Advice appreciated. Scott
Nov 23, 2011 at 03:17 PM
Previous versions of Scott Stoness's message #10110369 « 16-35L, 14L, TS-17 or Nikkor 14-24 »
