Suggest to me an FX Wide Angle...

Joined
Jan 8, 2009
Messages
5,301
Location
San Jose, CA
I've been thinking about a few things.

I had a 10.5 Fisheye when I shot crop sensor. LOVED it. 6" close focusing distance was rad. But alas, I had to let her go. :frown:

So, I've been going back and forth between the 14-24, 16-35, and the 17-35.

Understandable, the 16-35 is the newest with nano-coating, etc. But at f/4, I don't know if it's really going to be conducive for weddings. Obviously for wide tripod shots and such, that doesn't matter. Stopping down even to f/5.6 or more is fine. But for moving shots of people running out of a dark church, etc., I'm thinking f/4 might be a bit small. And I like the larger aperture of the 14-24 and 17-35. Then again, I like the ability to install filters on the 16-35 and 17-35.

Sharpness wise, I'm sure the 17-35 is the least sharp, seeing as the 14-24 is tack sharp (I've tried it), and the 16-35 is probably as sharp as my bigger lenses wide open if not a tad sharper, especially because it's an f/4 lens.

But... I like the longer zoom range of the 17-35 and 16-35.

Am I right in being worried about sharpness issues with the 17-35? Any downsides to the 16-35 minus the f/4 aperture? Is the 14-24 just too wide and too short of a focal length?

...or do I just shut my trap and buy a 16mm fishy? :confused:

...or do I just REALLY shut my trap, realize I rarely use wide angle lenses and I should save some money and since I just want to have one "just in case", buy that cheaper 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5?

Was that confusing enough? :biggrin:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Mar 23, 2009
Messages
918
Location
nj/nyc
if it's between the 17-35 and 16-35.......and speed is what you need, it's a no-brainer.

the 17-35 is a great lens and very sharp from what I've seen online........
 
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Messages
11,635
Location
Southern California
I've never heard of the 17-35 being unsharp... in fact, before the newer 16-35 and 14-24 came out, it was pretty much the go-to wide angle zoom for FX... and a veeeeery good one at that. It may not be quite as nice as the two newer lenses, but it is still a fantastic piece of glass... :smile:
 
Joined
Sep 10, 2008
Messages
1,520
Location
Orlando, FL
The 17-35's drawbacks are the bokeh isn't nearly as smooth as the 14-24, and the contrast/color aren't as punchy as the 14-24 or 16-35. Sharpness at center isn't the problem. The edges probably aren't up to 14-24 standards. The 16-35 is a great lens whose only real drawback (aside from f/4) is the distortion at the wider end - not the ideal lens for architecture compared to the 14-24.

Not sure why filters are a need for wedding shots, so I would say the 14-24 if cost is not an issue.

The only reason to consider the 17-35 over the 16-35 in my opinion is if that 1 stop is really important. If you are trying to freeze action in a dark, indoor locale without flash, I think you're screwed even at f/2.8 unless you have a D3s maybe.

I just got the 16-35, and am seriously thinking of selling my 14-24. It also doesn't hurt that I have the Sigma 8-16 for landscape stuff on the D7000.
 
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Messages
12,515
Location
near Montreal, Canada
I don't understand the rap the 17-35 gets. It is an awesome lens. I have shot a number of great images with it, with both DX (D1x and D2x) and FX (D700) bodies.
I did get the 14-24 also and it is excellent but at a cost. If it is within your budget, go for it. But if $$ is a bit of an issue, get a used 17-35 and enjoy!
 
Joined
Jan 13, 2011
Messages
1,743
Location
Australia
The 17-35 f2.8 will only give you one stop faster shutter speed over the 16-35 f4, so I don't think it's going to make a great deal of difference in the "stop action" stakes.

I have the 16-35 f4 VR and the benefit of VR is much overlooked. It allows you to shoot at up to 3-4 stops less ISO, which means that you could shoot ISO200 instead of ISO ISO1600 or 3200. Or, you can use f16 instead of f4 where you require extra DOF. I took the 16-36 f4 VR to Europe and the UK last year and I was shooting in those dimly lit churches, cathedrals and castles at ISO3200, f13 (for DOF to get the near seats and back of church in focus) and 1/5sec on occassions.

The 16-35 also has the Nano Coating which works a treat. It has quite a bit of distortion at the wide end but it is about the same as the 17-35 and they can be corrected in post process.

Having said that, I have just purchased a 14-24 f2.8 as an adjunct to my 16-35 to get that extra 2mm at the wide end and also for the fact that it is superior from 14-20mm, but the 14-24 and 16-35 are different lenses for different applications.
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2009
Messages
5,301
Location
San Jose, CA
Okay. So 14-24 seems like the best route to go on, if money is no object.

Does anyone want to chime in about the 18-35? I'm just curious if anyone has used it. I know it's not a "pro" lens. Trust me. I know it. I'm just curious.

Also, I never meant to imply that the 17-35 was a bad lens, was soft, or wasn't "pro". It's a fantastic lens. I'm just assuming that the newer 14-24 and 16-35 are sharper. That's all.
 
Joined
Jul 9, 2008
Messages
1,814
Location
City of Angels
16-35 is an awesome lens. if you wanna stop action at a dark venue, even f2.8 can be problematic. you want wide AND fast?? 24/1.4, problem solved.:biggrin:
 
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
508
Location
Australia
Yep I've owned all three and I'm always in a dilemma on which one to keep. The problem is that there is no clear answer - each has its strengths and weaknesses. Distortion, speed, flare, softness, filters and short focal range...pick which one of these bugs you the least and go with that lens :wink:
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2009
Messages
5,301
Location
San Jose, CA
gaidin, you were a little more concise in conveying what I had to say. I think I love the f/2.8, focal range, and the ability to add filters of the 17-35, plus it's plenty wide and cheaper (used) than the other options. Although the 16-35 is the cheapest brand new, for sure.

Just I better start saving! LOL!
 

Rob Zijlstra

A Koffie Drinker
Joined
Nov 5, 2008
Messages
999
Location
Netherlands
Does anyone want to chime in about the 18-35? I'm just curious if anyone has used it. I know it's not a "pro" lens. Trust me. I know it. I'm just curious.

I use this one very often. I'm satisfied with it. But maybe my standards are not high (professional?) enough!

You can look at the dedicated thread here:
https://www.nikoncafe.com/vforums/showthread.php?t=250775
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Messages
508
Location
Australia
I think I'll end up selling both the 16-35 and 14-24 and go back to the 17-35 Mike.

I pull out the 16-35 at a wedding and have to keep reminding myself not to take it under 20mm and that I'm not going to get much subject isolation in any of the shots. But then on a beach holiday I can whack on some Grad NDs and get sunset shots that are beautiful....or just walk around a new city and have that versatility that a focal range up to 35mm gives you.

I switch over to the 14-24 and end up having to "zoom with my feet" because even at the long end its still super-wide. But when you need WIIIIDE nothing even comes close to this one.

I think I'll settle for the 17-35 in the end and just live with a little softness. Most of the time I can USM them and you'd barely notice... :wink:
 
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Messages
12,515
Location
near Montreal, Canada
LOL :biggrin:, I see that I am not the only one with several of these.
I have had the 17-35 since some time and I got the 14-24 last fall.
The plan was to keep one but at this time I still have both and am not in a hurry to let either go (although I probably will one of these days).
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2009
Messages
5,301
Location
San Jose, CA
Thanks guys! I've seen a few of the 18-35 lenses go for $300, so I'll keep my eyes open and save myself the slap from my wife for thinking about spending another $1200-$1900 on a lens. LOL!

:)
 
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Messages
12,515
Location
near Montreal, Canada
Thanks guys! I've seen a few of the 18-35 lenses go for $300, so I'll keep my eyes open and save myself the slap from my wife for thinking about spending another $1200-$1900 on a lens. LOL!

:)

You have some really good glass. I'd get a used 17-35 for well under $1,000 to complement your setup.
 
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
29
Location
US
tried all. 16-35 was best to walk around. 14-24 was best for landscaping. filters not an issue with the Lee adapter. for wedding work though, f/4 is too slow so 17-35 would be my pick.
 
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
1,959
Location
Australia
...or do I just REALLY shut my trap, realize I rarely use wide angle lenses and I should save some money and since I just want to have one "just in case", buy that cheaper 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5?

in this case: just get a 20mm f2.8D series and be done with it.

i used a 20-35/2.8D for many moons and it was generally set to either 20mm or 35mm with the mid-range getting little or no use.

i recently got a 14-24. while it's a jaw-droppingly lovely piece of glass, 14mm shots require a large amount of care in composition.

i still have that 20-35 and it's still in regular service.
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2009
Messages
5,301
Location
San Jose, CA
The 17-35 is probably more up my ally. 17 is plenty wide. 14 is insanely wide, but would also basically meet my needs for a fishy at that width.

I have lots of thinking to do. LOL!

Thanks guys! Keep the opinions coming!
 
Joined
Aug 22, 2008
Messages
734
Location
Berkshire, UK
I've just picked up the siggy 12-24, but at f/5.6, it's no speed demon.

Up to now, I was on a shoestring budget for UWA on FX and contended myself to the Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4. It's been fine on the few occasions I wanted UWA and I got it new very very cheap. It's light, plasticky, soft at the edges wide open, but cheap enough to be a travelling UWA. The Nikkor 14-24/2.8 is miles better of course, but at nearly 10 times the cost, I couldn't justify it at the time I wanted to just "experiment" with wide angle...

If you get the chance to play with one, the Tammy might be worth a shot :smile:
 

Latest posts

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
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom