Full frame wide angle lens
Dec 4, 2013 04:27:52 #
Im after a new wide angle and wondering whats the best range in 17-35 or thereabouts with no vignetting? Prefer Nikon. I used to have the Nikon 17-35 2.8 wish I never sold it. I have a sigma 17-35 2.8-4 now and hardly ever used it but just read some reviews and the majority say its a very soft lens. Im planning a landscape holiday and don't want a soft lens. I don't really want to fork out big bucks for the Nikon 17-35. maybe a second hand one I suppose.
Dec 4, 2013 04:56:30 #
Dec 4, 2013 05:30:21 #
Bret wrote:
Have you considered a nice prime...say a 20 or 24mm 2.8?
Not versatile enough for me Im afraid. I like the look of the 16-35 f/4 VR but pretty pricey
Dec 4, 2013 07:58:04 #
saxkiwi wrote:
Im after a new wide angle and wondering whats the best range in 17-35 or thereabouts with no vignetting? Prefer Nikon. I used to have the Nikon 17-35 2.8 wish I never sold it. I have a sigma 17-35 2.8-4 now and hardly ever used it but just read some reviews and the majority say its a very soft lens. Im planning a landscape holiday and don't want a soft lens. I don't really want to fork out big bucks for the Nikon 17-35. maybe a second hand one I suppose.
I bought the 18-35 that Moose Peterson is raving about. I was not overly impressed with it, so sent it back and got the 16-35. I'm much happier with it and believe it will work great. It's a constant f/4.0, but as a landscape lens, f/4 is easily handled. Seldom shoot below f/8 anyway.
Dec 4, 2013 07:59:51 #
saxkiwi wrote:
Not versatile enough for me Im afraid. I like the look of the 16-35 f/4 VR but pretty pricey
Agreed but you will be very happy with it if you get one. Perhaps you can find one reconditioned from Nikon or used from someone like KEH? ;)
Dec 4, 2013 08:03:53 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
saxkiwi wrote:
Not versatile enough for me Im afraid. I like the look of the 16-35 f/4 VR but pretty pricey
Yes, it's pricey, but it also sounds like it would best suit your needs.
Dec 4, 2013 08:43:11 #
Bugfan
Loc: Toronto, Canada
Personally I've been using the 14-24mm F2.8 for years now and I've been really happy with it. It's not a prime so it's not razor sharp, but for landscapes, architecture and group shots it seems perfect for me.
I supplement it with the 24-70 and the 70-200 both also f2.8. Between the three I've got all the range I need for day to day stuff.
I supplement it with the 24-70 and the 70-200 both also f2.8. Between the three I've got all the range I need for day to day stuff.
Dec 4, 2013 08:56:52 #
saxkiwi wrote:
Not versatile enough for me Im afraid. I like the look of the 16-35 f/4 VR but pretty pricey
I have the 16-35mm F4 VR NANO, and its so sharp you can cut cheese with it! Great in low light on my D800E because of the VR, I never thought VR was a benefit on a wide lens until I got that one. Well worth the selling price.
Dec 4, 2013 11:02:03 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
Bugfan wrote:
Personally I've been using the 14-24mm F2.8 for years now and I've been really happy with it. It's not a prime so it's not razor sharp, but for landscapes, architecture and group shots it seems perfect for me.
I supplement it with the 24-70 and the 70-200 both also f2.8. Between the three I've got all the range I need for day to day stuff.
I supplement it with the 24-70 and the 70-200 both also f2.8. Between the three I've got all the range I need for day to day stuff.
I'm surprised to hear you say it isn't razor sharp. Everything I've read about it, plus my dad's experience with it, is that it's as sharp as any Nikon prime in its range, with the possible exception of the 24mm f/1.4. Perhaps some of the Zeiss primes would be sharper.
Dec 4, 2013 15:37:29 #
brucewells wrote:
I bought the 18-35 that Moose Peterson is raving about. I was not overly impressed with it, so sent it back and got the 16-35. I'm much happier with it and believe it will work great. It's a constant f/4.0, but as a landscape lens, f/4 is easily handled. Seldom shoot below f/8 anyway.
Ken rockwell says the Nikon 16-35 f/4 is the sharpest wide angle he's ever used and even canon doesn't have one that will match it. might have to splash out..
Dec 4, 2013 15:38:40 #
saxkiwi wrote:
Ken rockwell says the Nikon 16-35 f/4 is the sharpest wide angle he's ever used and even canon doesn't have one that will match it. might have to splash out..
I guess this time I have to agree with Rockwell, doesn't always happen.
Dec 4, 2013 15:39:04 #
MT Shooter wrote:
I have the 16-35mm F4 VR NANO, and its so sharp you can cut cheese with it! Great in low light on my D800E because of the VR, I never thought VR was a benefit on a wide lens until I got that one. Well worth the selling price.
Do you have a second hand one in your shop? :-)
Dec 4, 2013 15:42:12 #
Db7423 wrote:
Agreed but you will be very happy with it if you get one. Perhaps you can find one reconditioned from Nikon or used from someone like KEH? ;)
I have a feeling if its such a good lens then I probably wont find a second hand one..
Dec 4, 2013 15:46:05 #
Dec 4, 2013 16:01:25 #
saxkiwi wrote:
Do you have a second hand one in your shop? :-)
I wish I did quite often, but I only have my personal copy right now, sorry.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.