Can't decide - 17-35mm 2.8 AF-S vs 16-35mm f4 VR?

[Jonathan F/2]

I'm looking at either getting the 17-35mm AF-S or the 16-35mm VR? I like the build quality and 2.8 aperture of the 17-35mm, overall it feels like a solid workhorse. On the other hand the 16-35mm has fancy VR and seems to be sharper, but it's an f/4 and a little bulky. I'll be using this lens for event/pj work, so corners won't be an issue. I've owned both before and I liked each based on their respective strengths, but now that I need this FL again, I can't decide! I wish Tamron or Sigma would just make a 16-35mm 2.8 with stabilization and a metal barrel!

BTW - I bought the newer 18-35mm G lens and the copy I got had a wonky electrical issue. I've decided to to just skip this lens and look at the latter choices.

 

[daveR1]

Jonathan,

I had the 16-35 F4 and really liked it except for the length. It sorta stuck out a bit for a wide angle zoom. I sold it & tried the Tokina 17-35 F4. 1st copy was defective, 2nd copy was great out to about 30mm then got really soft. Focusing seemed to "hunt" at times so it was no go for the bike racing I shoot. Sent it back.

Then I borrowed my buddy's new Nikon 17-35 F2.8. Had high expectations for this lens. Autofocus felt not as accurate nor as fast as as the 16-35 I had sold. I shot a bunch of interiors of a house. Many images did not look sharp and the colors seemed flat compared to shots I had taken with the 16-35. I tried autofocus thru viewfinder, liveview (even zoomed in) and never felt like I was nailing the focus. Pretty unimpressed for an expensive lens. I just think some of the newer lenses are sharper & better focusing than some of the older designs, especially on a hi-rez camera like my D800. Plus, I like the VR for handheld shots with slow shutter & the Nano coat to combat flares, neither of which the 17-35 F2.8 has. Not to mention that it is $600 more in cost. Just my 2c.

Dave

BTW - My dealer has a new 16-35 F4 waiting for me that I'll pick up next week. Nikon had a one week sale on it & he's put one aside for me.

 

[mawyatt]

I have the 16-35 VR and it's one my most often used lens. The VR really comes in handy in museums where lighting is poor. A good example is the Air & Space Museum in Dulles, they don't allow tripods or monopods. The lighting was very poor and often the shutter speed was slower than 1/30 sec, the VR really helped here. We just returned from a trip up and down the coast of California and into Oregon, visiting almost every park along the way. I would estimate that 90% of my shots were with this lens, the VR even came in handy in the Red Wood forest where the lighting is very poor even during mid-day because of coverage almost entirely blocking out the sun light.

 

[Deleted member 4116]

I'm not one to complain about barrel distortion on a wide angle lens, but the BD on the Nikon 16-35 was the worst of any wide angle lens out there. Couldn't find a 17-35 that was in good condition and the 14-24 was out of my price range so I took a chance on the Tokina 17-35 f/4 and it has been fantastic. The filter thread is quite large (82) but I almost never use filters so it wasn't an issue for me.

 

[Randy]

I'm not one to complain about barrel distortion on a wide angle lens, but the BD on the Nikon 16-35 was the worst of any wide angle lens out there. Couldn't find a 17-35 that was in good condition and the 14-24 was out of my price range so I took a chance on the Tokina 17-35 f/4 and it has been fantastic. The filter thread is quite large (82) but I almost never use filters so it wasn't an issue for me.

+10

the 16-35 at 16 ruined an entire day in Rome for me
IMO the lens is junk (not really but I hated mine), BD is really bad and fixing it in LR gives up too much of the image

 

[Joseph]

PJ work it's 17-35. Sometimes even 2.8 is too slow... let alone f/4.

sorry you had issues with your 18-35. I'm on my 2nd copy and both of them are fine. Sold the first one for no reason, regretted it, and then bought another!

 

[Joseph]

Where is ddietiker when you need him? 16-35 f/4 is NOT an architectural type lens. It's for landscapes where you won't notice the distortion, plus you should already know that going in. I loved the 16-35 f/4 when I had it.....but Nikon released the 18-35G and the IQ is the same. It's cheaper, lighter, and shorter. I sold the 16-35 and kept the 18-35.

I also considered the Tokina 17-35 f/4, but a few reviews I read about this lens don't look too hot, for instance: http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/784-tokina17354fx?start=2

2 and a half stars man...

 

[Kingfisher]

17-35/2.8 for me. I love the lens as it has great performance and versatility while pairing well with my 28-70. Plus VR on wide angle lenses doesn't work in real world scenarios and is nothing but a placebo and marketing gimmick.

 

[Valret]

"Plus VR on wide angle lenses doesn't work in real world scenarios and is nothing but a placebo and marketing gimmick.

As an owner of the 16-35 I have to respectfully disagree...I can see how one would conclude that, but VR is handy, it is useful and it is effective at times when you could require it...

With respect to BD it's practically non existent at 17-18mm and I'm shocked and disappointed that seemingly experienced photographers are dissing this lens because they didn't familiarise themselves with the capability of their equipment.

I +1 the 18-35G if it's a good copy...I just needed wider at times..

The only other option is the Tokina 16-38 f2.8 which has got good reviews too.

I'm travelling at the moment so don't have access to other examples but here's one at 1/6 secs at 26mm 16-35 f/4.(handheld)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Garden_Shed-1.jpg by SilentStream, on Flickr

 

[Jonathan F/2]

Man, just reading this thread...you guys are all just confused as I am!

PJ work it's 17-35. Sometimes even 2.8 is too slow... let alone f/4.

sorry you had issues with your 18-35. I'm on my 2nd copy and both of them are fine. Sold the first one for no reason, regretted it, and then bought another!

Yeah, but since I'm usually a two body or multi-lens shooter, I'd probably carry the 50mm 1.8 G or snatch the new Nikon 35mm 1.8 ED, but then having 2.8 @ 17mm might be useful.

Jonathan,

I had the 16-35 F4 and really liked it except for the length. It sorta stuck out a bit for a wide angle zoom. I sold it & tried the Tokina 17-35 F4. 1st copy was defective, 2nd copy was great out to about 30mm then got really soft. Focusing seemed to "hunt" at times so it was no go for the bike racing I shoot. Sent it back.

Then I borrowed my buddy's new Nikon 17-35 F2.8. Had high expectations for this lens. Autofocus felt not as accurate nor as fast as as the 16-35 I had sold. I shot a bunch of interiors of a house. Many images did not look sharp and the colors seemed flat compared to shots I had taken with the 16-35. I tried autofocus thru viewfinder, liveview (even zoomed in) and never felt like I was nailing the focus. Pretty unimpressed for an expensive lens. I just think some of the newer lenses are sharper & better focusing than some of the older designs, especially on a hi-rez camera like my D800. Plus, I like the VR for handheld shots with slow shutter & the Nano coat to combat flares, neither of which the 17-35 F2.8 has. Not to mention that it is $600 more in cost. Just my 2c.

Dave

BTW - My dealer has a new 16-35 F4 waiting for me that I'll pick up next week. Nikon had a one week sale on it & he's put one aside for me.

My plan is also to use it on the D800, so I might have to take this into consideration as well. I'm kicking myself not getting the 16-35 VR when it was $1000. All the people selling it used are asking prices way to high in my opinion. I'd rather just buy new if that's the case!

+10

the 16-35 at 16 ruined an entire day in Rome for me
IMO the lens is junk (not really but I hated mine), BD is really bad and fixing it in LR gives up too much of the image

That's one thing I remember about the 16-35 is that the barrel distortion really is noticeable, in comparison the 17-35 was much better in this regard.

Where is ddietiker when you need him? 16-35 f/4 is NOT an architectural type lens. It's for landscapes where you won't notice the distortion, plus you should already know that going in. I loved the 16-35 f/4 when I had it.....but Nikon released the 18-35G and the IQ is the same. It's cheaper, lighter, and shorter. I sold the 16-35 and kept the 18-35.

I also considered the Tokina 17-35 f/4, but a few reviews I read about this lens don't look too hot, for instance: http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/784-tokina17354fx?start=2

2 and a half stars man...

The 18-35mm G that I had was sharp...but after dealing with a faulty electrical contact issue, I'm a little hesitant to get another one especially since this will see heavy work use.

 

[Joseph]

Man, just reading this thread...you guys are all just confused as I am!

I think you, me and supermario all can't decide what gear to settle with. lol
I love trying out every gear I can get my hands on.

I'm kicking myself not getting the 16-35 VR when it was $1000. All the people selling it used are asking prices way to high in my opinion. I'd rather just buy new if that's the case!

You can wait for another lens rebate, I'm sure it'll go back to $1K. There's one on FM selling for $849, which is not bad.

 

[Jonathan F/2]

I think you, me and supermario all can't decide what gear to settle with. lol
I love trying out every gear I can get my hands on.



You can wait for another lens rebate, I'm sure it'll go back to $1K. There's one on FM selling for $849, which is not bad.

Unfortunately my lens budget isn't like it used to be! I'm down to more of what I need, than what I want nowadays...and I want a lot of things!

 

[Goofy]

I had the 18-35G, liked it then sold it... I'm almost as bad as you guys! I was on the lookout for another 18-35G but picked up a 16-35 while the rebate was on a couple of weeks ago. I like the better build quality and respectfully disagree with Kingfisher as IMO the VR really helps in lowlight, the size doesn't bother me but I knew what to expect because I've previously owned one. The distortion at 16mm is an issue for some and as Joseph said probably not best for buildings/architecture, it's fairly easy to correct though and at 18mm I'm pretty sure the distortion is very similar to the 18-35G @18, from then on I'd say distortion isn't a problem with the 16-35.

 

[Jonathan F/2]

I had the 18-35G, liked it then sold it... I'm almost as bad as you guys! I was on the lookout for another 18-35G but picked up a 16-35 while the rebate was on a couple of weeks ago. I like the better build quality and respectfully disagree with Kingfisher as IMO the VR really helps in lowlight, the size doesn't bother me but I knew what to expect because I've previously owned one. The distortion at 16mm is an issue for some and as Joseph said probably not best for buildings/architecture, it's fairly easy to correct though and at 18mm I'm pretty sure the distortion is very similar to the 18-35G @18, from then on I'd say distortion isn't a problem with the 16-35.

I'll be using the 16-35 mainly as an event lens, so distortion won't be an issue. I've just been encountering situations where 24mm with a standard zoom isn't getting the desired look I want. Plus, I'm also finding that there are many times now that I've been asked to take low light ambient shots and the VR does seem more useful than a 2.8 aperture in that regards.

I'm also thinking of buttressing my wide end with a fast 35/50 lens, most likely one of the two Sigma Art primes just for those times when I need real low light performance, which I think would be a better solution over a 2.8 zoom.

 

[Deleted member 4116]

Where is ddietiker when you need him? 16-35 f/4 is NOT an architectural type lens. It's for landscapes where you won't notice the distortion, plus you should already know that going in. I loved the 16-35 f/4 when I had it.....but Nikon released the 18-35G and the IQ is the same. It's cheaper, lighter, and shorter. I sold the 16-35 and kept the 18-35.

I also considered the Tokina 17-35 f/4, but a few reviews I read about this lens don't look too hot, for instance: http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/784-tokina17354fx?start=2

2 and a half stars man...

I don't trust their reviews as I think they over exaggerate most of the time. The first test I did was the corners since they gave it low marks and I was extremely impressed with what I got. My recent trip to Seattle, when I shot with this lens, I almost always shot at 17mm and did a lot at f/4...my results showed what I would have expected from a wide angle lens.

 

[Goofy]

I'm also thinking of buttressing my wide end with a fast 35/50 lens, most likely one of the two Sigma Art primes just for those times when I need real low light performance, which I think would be a better solution over a 2.8 zoom.

I have the 35 Art and love it, that and the two f/4 zooms pretty much cover my needs. I personally find 50mm a bit boring but I'll add the 85 Art if it appears, a fast 35/85 would be a great low light combo IMO.

 

[Prettym1k3]

Jonathan,

I know you shoot people, so I'm going to tell you what I told myself - The 17-35 f/2.8 is a PJ's dream. It's sharp in the middle (although a little soft on the edges), has the f/2.8 aperture you'll want when shooting in low light, and the distortion really isn't that bad.

I found my copy with an original box and hard case, locally, for $900 and swooped it up. I have no focus squeaking like some people complain about, and I use this lens a lot during receptions at weddings and it gets knocked around a lot. It's a very solid lens, built for heavy use, and does it's job well.

I've been told that the 16-35 f/2 VR is sharper, but you're losing a full stop of light, and VR doesn't freeze subjects. Additionally, as noted above, barrel distortion on the wide end is pretty heavy.

 

[longzoom]

BD on 16-35 is pretty heavy? Image at 16, not improved in PP. Sharp as my 14-24 to extreme corners. Crop. Yeah, some small amount of geometrical distortions and even smaller CA, but "heavy"? LZ

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

20130527-003 by longzoom, on Flickr

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

20130527-003-2 by longzoom, on Flickr

 

[Deleted member 4116]

With the caveat of "I don't care for review sites and such", there can be useful information you can get from them.
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/492-nikkor_afs_1635_4_ff?start=1

While I won't cite this as the end-all/be-all, it has been noted multiple times by multiple people that the BD on the 16-35 is greater than most others. Even the 14-24 doesn't have as much. Again, you expect some BD as it is a wide angle lens. It's just noteworthy that it exhibits it more than most others.

 

[John D]

I like my copy of the 16-35. But then again I don't nitpick my photos. I just do whatever pleases me.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Sunrise Saturday Morning by J Danley, on Flickr

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Tipton County Courthouse by J Danley, on Flickr