The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Nikon 16-35 vs 17-35- which is better for people?

John Kraus

New member
Most reviews are looking at the wide end, has anyone compared both lenses at 35mm?

I'm reading the 16-35 doesn't perform that well at 35, don't know which is better.

17-35 also looks so much better at the wide end in terms of distortion.

F 2.8 is not a big advantage to me, as I see the 17-35 just beginning to look good at 4, squeaking by at 3.5.

16-35 better corners. Deciding which to buy for reportage people shooting, thanks.
--
John Kraus
 

Dustbak

Member
I have one, I find it excellent and much better than the 17-35 which I have also owned. Having said that, if 35mm is what is important to you I would have a look at the AFD35/2.0. Small, fast, excellent optically and really cheap. On the 35mm side it outperforms my 16-35. The only thing that outperforms this 35/2.0 is my ZF35/2.0.

To be really frank. I think all 4 of these lenses are adequate enough. The real important part is which one do you feel most at home with?

The 16-35 does distort pretty heavily at 16mm but fairly easily corrected and in many cases it doesn't particularly bother me.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
I agree, if you just want 35mm for people shots then Nikon 35/2D AF ... tiny and I often use just this on my D3s as a walkabout lens.
 
A

anselgrey23

Guest
The 16-35 is no slouch by any stretch of the imagination. In some of your images, I see that it betters the 17-35. But it's not in the same class as the 14-24. No reasonable person would have suspected such.
 
another vote for the 35 2.0 if you're sticking around 35 with a foot zoom.

I am going to rent the 16-35 for a couple of weddings in the next two weeks. I'll revisit this post with my results.

I use my 21 Zeiss for wide stuff now.
 
R

RRRoger

Guest
I thank Nikon for the 16-35 f/4
After getting one, I saw a used 17-35 f/2.8 go on "FireSale".
I compared the two and kept the mint AF-S Nikkor 17-35 that cost me only $800.
For my use, the 17-35 is better all around.
I use it for Landscapes and indoor Weddings and plan on using it with my D3100 for Video.
 
I went and bought a 16-35 and love it! It does have a fair amount of distortion at 16, but I found it sharper and drew better than the different 17-35 2.8's I compared it to. I did not feel as if I lost anything in missing that last stop.
 

Dustbak

Member
The distortion is solved pretty much with the ACR lens profile that became available with the new version of Camera Raw. Works very well!
 

Dustbak

Member
That would give you access to the newest ACR. Expensive access though. You could also buy Lightroom but I can understand that CS5 is more appealing than that if you already use Aperture.

I have found CS5 worth the money. Several features are real timesavers and have already made sure CS5 paid for itself.
 

John Kraus

New member
Happy to say I ended up going with the 17-35. Intuition and feel vs. 100% Crop comparisons.
I love the 2.8 for the brighter viewing. Love that the lens is one inch shorter than the 16-35. Love that distortion at 16mm is so much better controlled.
Interesting experience for me of balancing research with real-world experience. I just find the 17-35 a much more satisfying and responsive lens to shoot with.
Happy to say I found a LNIB sample.
 
Top