Lens for hiking..new 18-35 or 16-35?

Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
213
Location
north wales
Just joined the forum as I'm looking to buy the D800 shortly.

I've read a few reviews and my thinking regarding lenses is the 24-70 F2.8, which appears very highly regarded by almost everyone, the 24-120 range is a little better and VR sound useful but ultimately it doesn't seem to produce the same quality of photo.

For something slightly wider and most likely my mainstay hiking lens I've also read the first few reviews on the new 18-35 F3.5-4.5G and it's starting to look a very good option...seems sharper than the 16-35 across the frame, little less distortion, less weight and cheaper.. it lacks the VR but if I have the tripod then it's a non-issue.

I know it's early days for the 18-35 but wondered if anyone had tried it and could add some "real world" feedback

Simon
 
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
43,444
Location
CHARLOTTE
Real Name
Randy
Unless you need 2.8 I can't tell a 24-70 shot from a 24-120 shot, the 24-120 is that good (I own and shoot them both)

Barrel Distortion (BD) on the 16-35 is pretty severe, some fixable in post but at the cost of composition
 
Last edited by a moderator:

LyndeeLoo

Administrator
Administrator
Joined
May 19, 2008
Messages
28,834
Location
St. Louis, Missouri
Here's are links to two threads for you to peruse if you haven't already. This one is for the 18-35, and this one for the 16-35.

BTW - welcome to the Cafe!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Dec 26, 2010
Messages
5,725
Location
Annapolis
You only need one lens, the 35/1.4. This is my favorite lens for hiking as well. It does everything I need it to do on my D800. If it is not wide enough I shoot a handheld pano and stitch in Photoshop. Love that lens!!!
 
Joined
Nov 28, 2012
Messages
257
Location
California
If you're looking for the wide angle, why not just splurge on the 14-24mm 2.8? FWIW, I took my 24-70mm 2.8 on a recent trip to the Sierra Nevada Mountians, and this lens did not leave my camera body. We hiked up to the Sierra Buttes and visited some of the small gold rush era towns around there. The lens is durable and does not show any wear--aside from some dust, which compressed air cleans right off.
 
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
213
Location
north wales
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #8
Thanks for the replies everyone and the links, the 18-35 looks very good to me and has just replaced the 16-35 on my list, don't need VR and the lighter weight appeals for hiking. I did look at the 14-24 but probably won't use it much at the wide end and I'm not too keen on the setup for using Lee filters.

My lens line-up is now looking like:

18-35
50mm F1.8G
85mm F1.8G


Simon
 
Joined
Nov 21, 2011
Messages
1,333
Location
Brooklyn NYC USA
In my experience, 17-35 with its soft corners and CA belongs to film era. Know nothing about new 18-35, but my good copy of 16-35 is very close to my 14-24 in term of sharpness, if not the same. Just have an extra 2mm in frame to correct distortions in PP, at the wide end. Image and crop at 16mm, D800..
20130527-003 by longzoom, on Flickrd. Image and crop at 16mm
20130527-003-2 by longzoom, on Flickr, D800.
 
Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
7,500
Location
Los Angeles, CA
hey Simon, welcome to the Cafe!

For strictly "hiking", light equipment is the obvious choice.......but if every ounce counts, then you should've picked up the D600 and not the D800. :wink: The 16-35 is slightly heavier, but in real world usage you will not feel the difference. At one point I considered buying the 18-35, but ultimately decided that for a mere $200 more, I get "more" lens with the 16-35. The 18-35 cost $750 new and a used 16-35 go for about $950 and gets you VR, 2mm wider, better build, and Nanocoat. For me, the $200 extra was definitely worth it. I did try the 18-35 AF-S in the store... I think its impressively small and just as sharp as the 16-35, but the build is definitely below the 16-35, among other things... so I just decided to keep my 16-35.
 
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
213
Location
north wales
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #13
hey Simon, welcome to the Cafe!

For strictly "hiking", light equipment is the obvious choice.......but if every ounce counts, then you should've picked up the D600 and not the D800. :wink: The 16-35 is slightly heavier, but in real world usage you will not feel the difference. At one point I considered buying the 18-35, but ultimately decided that for a mere $200 more, I get "more" lens with the 16-35. The 18-35 cost $750 new and a used 16-35 go for about $950 and gets you VR, 2mm wider, better build, and Nanocoat. For me, the $200 extra was definitely worth it. I did try the 18-35 AF-S in the store... I think its impressively small and just as sharp as the 16-35, but the build is definitely below the 16-35, among other things... so I just decided to keep my 16-35.
Thanks Joseph, I take your point :wink: I'm hoping to give them both a try tomorrow if they are available in my local camera shop

Simon
 
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
3,012
Location
UK
16-35 f4: Make sure that the Distortion Control is turned on and judge the 16mm shots by the review on the LCD? If the corrected review contains all that you want in the frame then there will be no need to allow extra for correction in PP.

In CNX2 the correction will be applied automatically with the option to turn it off. In other RAW converters you will get a shot which is wide enough to correct.

DG

P.S. In case you were wondering, Distortion Control is not applied in Live View until the shot is taken.
 
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
4,886
Location
Valley Forge, PA
I bought the 18-35 AF-S a few weeks ago to use on my D3 and D4. For me, 35mm isnt wide enough. I rented a 16-35 VR and never used the VR, so I decided to go with the 18-35 to save a bit of money for once. It's a great lens. Wide open, it's a touch soft at the corners and extreme edges. Stopped down to F8, it's great everywhere. The lens has great color rendition and contrast. AF is not lightning fast, but I use it for landscapes so it is not an issue.

I posted some of my shots in the 18-35 thread over in lens lust if you want to check them out. I think you will be very satisfied with it.
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
1,024
Location
Somewhere In Time
Rich, even on the D4 the AF is not fast?
I'm considering buying this lens to use on my D4 and I need it be at least as fast in AF as my 24-120 F4.
Any additional info on the matter would be greatly appreciated.
 
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
4,886
Location
Valley Forge, PA
Rich, even on the D4 the AF is not fast?
I'm considering buying this lens to use on my D4 and I need it be at least as fast in AF as my 24-120 F4.
Any additional info on the matter would be greatly appreciated.
It focuses fine with both bodies, just not quite as fast as my 70-200 VR or 200/2. I've used it a lot in the last few weeks and the AF has never been an issue. I've never use a 24-120 so I can't compare. I can say that the AF seems just as fast as the 16-35. Me and a friend compared the 2 the other day. After looking at our images, it was hard to tell the difference, especially when stopped down a bit. It's the best $750 I've ever spent on gear, and that says a lot.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom