Nikon D800 First Blush

[gustavo]

I read only great reviews about the 16-35 VR, so this is a fix starter for WA zoom for me. I am sure any prime will top it at 24, but the differences are not significant enough to justify carrying more lenses for this reason.

Total different thing is when I need 1.4 in any of the WA's. For this I will get a 1.4/24G as soon as I recover from the major system shift to Nikon and D800E

thank you very much. I appreciate your opinion.
Gustavo.

 

[ustein]

photozone.de was not too excited about the 16-35mm VR:

Nikkor AF-S 16-35mm f/4 G ED VR (FX) - Review / Test Report - Analysis

 

[TRSmith]

My involvement with lens testing is pretty minimal. I tend to be loyal to the lenses I own and rarely find defects so horrible I can't live with them. I do tend to buy "pro" grade lenses though, so perhaps that explains some of my blissful ignorance.

In the wide zoom category I have a 17-35-2.8 and really love it. Yet I rarely see it mentioned. It is more likely that the 16-35 gets all the attention. To be honest, I can't remember now what made me decide on the 17-35, but my fuzzy memory thinks it might be because when all was said and done, it was at least as good as the 16-35 and faster.

Can anyone tell me why there's no love for the 17-35?

Thanks!
Tim

 

[D&A]

Hi Tim,

There is love for the Nikon 17-35mm f2.8, but in general, it's weak at 17-20mm wide open across the frame and edges and corners at these focal lengths is still week until at least f4.5-f5.6. In addition, when compared to both the 14-24mm f2.8 and 16-35mm f4 VR lenses, it's contrast is moderate which gives images a bit of a flat look. With that said, it is an excellent performing lens for the most part with relatively low distortion and certainly capable of pro results on D700/D3s bodies. I haven't seen much on controlled testing of this lens on the D800 yet, but I would presume, those soft sides/corners might become even more of an issue with this new body.

As for the 16-35mm f4 VR lens, it too like the Nikon 24-120 f4 Vr, is not a favorite of mine. The issue is the extreme distortion at 16-20mm and which for certain types of subjects and shooting is not correctable in a practical sense. For other uses and subjects where distortion is correctable, the sharpness of this lens is commendable for the most part, although I have seen some edge/corner softness.

Dave (D&A)

 

[gustavo]

photozone.de was not too excited about the 16-35mm VR:

Nikkor AF-S 16-35mm f/4 G ED VR (FX) - Review / Test Report - Analysis

Thank you Uwe, I appreciate your help.
I´ve just read it and they are not too excited about this lens.
KenRockwell seems to be happier with its results: "This said, for most of us reading this, this 16-35mm is the sharpest and best-handling ultrawide zoom ever made. Get the 17-55mm f/2.8 if you need solid metal or f/2.8, otherwise, I'm going to grab this 16-35mm long before I'd use the heavier 17-35mm again." (Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR Review)
lensrentals rated over the 14-24 (LensRentals.com - D800 Lens Selection). Yes I know.
DxoMark gave it five stars for landscapes, when it´s mounted in the 3x (DxOMark - Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR)
Anyway, I´m not so sure.
I live in Argentina, it´s impossible to think in probing a new lens o rent, so I won´t be able to probe them, that´s the reason I appreciate so much all your impressions and help.

Regards.

 

[gustavo]

I´ve just read the photozone review of the 16-35 lens and they are not too excited.
KenRockwell seems to be happier with its performance: "This said, for most of us reading this, this 16-35mm is the sharpest and best-handling ultrawide zoom ever made. Get the 17-55mm f/2.8 if you need solid metal or f/2.8, otherwise, I'm going to grab this 16-35mm long before I'd use the heavier 17-35mm again." (Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR Review)
lensrentals rated over the 14-24 (LensRentals.com - D800 Lens Selection). Yes I know.
DxoMark gave it five stars for landscapes, when it´s mounted in the 3x (DxOMark - Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR)
also, I´m not so sure.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

It's kind of a tough call the distortion is horrible at 16 mm and cleans up at 20 but the 35mm setting is not rated well so in effect you get a 21 to let's say 32 mm zoom. Hmmm that's not what you bought. Not saying its bad but sounds limiting.

Now I know as I said earlier you can clean up the 16mm distortion but this is so severe you have to be degrading the image pretty hard. I little fix okay but this much involved makes me think too much.

 

[gustavo]

Thanks Guy I appreciate your opinion. I think I can believe with the distortion at 16-20 and 35. I think I don´t need the extra aperture for landscapes and architecture. I don´t know if there is any other really sharp and good 20/24 (zoom or prime) lens for this money.
14-24, 24 1.4, Zeiss 21 and 24 PC are more expensive than the 16-35. If it is sharp enough from corner to corner at 20/24 range is good for me.
The 24 pc and its extra DOF could make me think a little more. I´ve recently seen a wonderful interior picture with this lens at this forum.
Do you know if the 24 pc is as sharp as the other mentioned?
Regards.
Gustavo.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I think in the range your looking at and costs it sounds like it will work for what your after. This really is a good lens from all accounts it's the extreme ends of it but if you work within its good range you should be just fine.

 

[gustavo]

thank´s again. 16-35 and 24-70, two of three, now the (short) tele (prime/zoom). maybe tomorrow, to late for me now.
regards.

 

[ustein]

I have an old 17-35mm from 2001 and will live with it. Not a range I use that much (rare actually).

 

[FredBGG]

Also the 24 has great F2 look to it for the creative stuff.

Very true. Shallow depth of field IMHO is so mice at times with a wide angle.
You get the space and environment of wide angle, but the focus on the subject.

You are going to be much happier with the 24 1.4 it will ad atmosphere to your even work too. It's weird how you actually end up telling more of a story by "showing less" with shallow depth of field.

 

[Dustbak]

I own a 16-35 (as well as the 14-24 & the 24), it is one of my most used lenses on the D700. I am waiting for my D800e. I find the 16-35 sharp, even wide open and also in the corners even though the corners do improve when stoppped down somewhat.

The distortion at 16mm is quite pronounced but it is corrected very well in ACR by one tickbox, making it easy. Yes, it should degrade the image quality but not that far that it was a showstopper for me. Actually I did not notice it at a glance, I have not been looking really hard for it. If it would have been really obvious I would have noticed it.

This was all on the D700 which is probably much more forgiving than the D800e will be.

The way I use the 24/1.4 is more for its shallow DoF with people but I often find it a tad too wide (I like to get very close but I find myself almost on top of people). I grab the 35/1.4 most of the time. If there will be an actual AFS 28/1.8G I just might get that one...

 

[gustavo]

A lot of information. thanks.

 

[Jack]

the 28/1.8 is on my short list if it becomes a reality

Re the 24/1.4. I personally do not see any viable reason for the 24/1.4 -- it's bigger and heavier than it needs to be, and I personally cannot see any benefit to f1.4 in a lens that short, UNLESS/EXCEPT you are using it on a crop sensor camera where it's effectively a 35.

 

[glenerrolrd]

I have the 24/1.4 and the 14-24/2.8 . I can not imagine using the 14-24/2.8 for work on the street or even travel . Its front element is huge and is difficult to protect . The lens is front heavy and awkward to carry . On a tripod or in a studio its superb but thats not me .

The 24/1.4 AF is as Jack points out maybe too big for a d700/d800 sized body . It balances nicely on the Pro sized D3/D4 bodies . I like this lens but agree that a smaller 28/1.8 AF with asph elements is a must have. The debate amoung the photojournalists is 24 or 28 and the younger guys like the 24 better . They care a lot more about the speed because they need it for night shooting . You also get a lot less clipping of body parts when shooting in close . I can live with 1.8 and a really good 28/1.8 would be perfect . But this is a constant debate 24 or 28?

One thing thats not discussed is the need for AF . With a 24 you have to be really good with using the movable focus points on a Nikon to make any difference . The subjects not in the middle most of the time . Above 100mm you can actually use the full screen focus method and let the camera pick out the subject (most Pros swear by this ) . But below 100mm you need to pick the plane of focus and that requires moving the spot focus .

However the real question is do you need AF on a 24 ? If you shoot events ..yes ..but for most work the MF Zeiss glass is not that hard . I used the 28/2 Zeiss on one body for a wedding and had no problem shooting wide open .

 

[Jack]

Roger, if I were a PJ, a fast 28 would be glued to my main body

 

[Guy Mancuso]

I shot for the press many moons ago a 24 is like heaven since usually your so tight to a ongoing story with video and still cams all around you and up front and personal with the subject that you need a 24mm. Just no getting around a fast wide. For me a 24mm would be glued if I was still doing that type of work which on occasion i do . Its also the best hail mary lens around. LOL

BTW the 24 is as long as the 35 which i don't think that is that big and 1.4 lenses equals big anyway no getting around it.

 

[Jack]

So we find a difference between us finally! I like the 20 as my "Hail Mary" lens :ROTFL: Seriously though, a 20, 28, fast 35, fast 50 and reasonably fast 85 or 105, makes a pretty killer set of PJ primes, and in my case the 28 would be bolted to a dedicated body since I know it would see regular work in probably 90% of my shoots. But I would not chastise the 24, 35, 50, 85 choice either -- just wouldn't need to be a fast 24 for me LOLOL!

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Im right your wrong so there. ROTFLMAO

Just kidding. Okay have portraits to shoot 85 or 180. Lol

No I don't have your 105 . Lol