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!

16-35 VR

m_driscoll

New member
Here's some crops in the lower left corner. There are slight differences in color. Maybe a little more contrast with the 14-24? I set the Aperture and let the camera select shutter speed and ISO. That could account for the color variation? I think the lens is a keeper. The biggest con is probably the increased distortion over the 14-24. I can live with that. Cheers, Matt.

1. 14-24; 16mm; 1/1250 @ f/4


2. 16-35mm; 16mm; 1/800 @ f/4


3. 14-24; 16mm; 1/250 @ f/8


4. 16-35mm; 16mm; 1/200 @ f/8


5. 14-24; 24mm; 1/1000 @ f/4


6. 16-35mm; 24mm; 1/610 @ f/4


7. 14-24; 24mm; 1/1000 @ f/8


8. 16-35mm; 24mm; 1/160 @ f/8


PS: I always pull out those purple flowering weeds about now and plant annuals.

http://mdriscoll.zenfolio.com
 

AlexLF

Well-known member
Matt, me and Nikon owes you :) Seriously, the difference is really not big at all. Looks like 14-24 a little bit sharper and a bit more contrasty. So I personally would go with 14-24 just because I make pretty big prints.
 

m_driscoll

New member
Matt, me and Nikon owes you :) Seriously, the difference is really not big at all. Looks like 14-24 a little bit sharper and a bit more contrasty. So I personally would go with 14-24 just because I make pretty big prints.
Alex: No problem. It was fun. Those are the differences that I see, also. You can see that in the first two images. But, It's pretty close. You also shoot with the D3x, right? You can take advantage of any difference in sharpness. Cheers, Matt

http://mdriscoll.zenfolio.com
 

AlexLF

Well-known member
Alex: No problem. It was fun. Those are the differences that I see, also. You can see that in the first two images. But, It's pretty close. You also shoot with the D3x, right? You can take advantage of any difference in sharpness. Cheers, Matt

http://mdriscoll.zenfolio.com
Matt, yes, I shoot with D3x and I bought it for landscapes too (never done them with it though ... yet :(). So it's going to be the winning combo.
 

Corlan F.

Subscriber Member
Matt, thanks for enlightening with this comparison.
From your tests here (and a couple others) i must say that in my eyes and from my perspective, the 14-24 has overall a clear advantage -in terms of micro-contrast, sharpness, distortion, color. Btw the color aspect (from this series but also other shots) makes me think that the newer lens could take advantage of some kind of profile in C1 or the new LR3/ACR etc. Just a thought from the first samples. Maybe i'm wrong.

Then i remember preferring -significantly- the ZF21 over the 14-24... hmmm. Why Zeiss don't make AF lenses in F-mount? :(
 
Corlan, I am with you. I pickedd the ZF 21 over the 14-24 mainly due to size and didn't think I would shoot much below 17 or so.

The 16-35 is right in the focal legnth wheelhouse that I'm looking for. I do wish it was a 2.8 though.
 

jlancasterd

Active member
Thanks to the excellent performance of the D700 at high ISO I don't find the f4.0 minimum aperture of the 16-35 much of a problem - even hand-holding shots in poorly lit situations, as in the following (converted to mono because of colour casts due to mixed lighting)

View attachment 31303
 
Last edited:

Corlan F.

Subscriber Member
You always find incredible machineries, John.
I'm not into trains myself but always look at your photos closely, they feature a lot of surprising details -this one's indeed particularly "bristling" with details.

(sorry for the OT :eek:)
 
Last edited:

glenerrolrd

Workshop Member
Just thought I would ask this esteemed group for some thoughts here.

I need a wide angle zoom for events/wedding work. I'm torn between the 17-35 2.8 and the 16-35 VRII f4. Both are wonderful lenses and about the same price, so I guess it all comes down to quality.

What say you??
Couple of things that I don t think were mentioned. Why do you need anything wider than the 24 on the 24-70/2.8 nikkor? Since it came out the 24-70/2.8 seemed like the one lens solution for most weddings .

Wider than 28mm causes too much distortion in a face unless its centered.

There are a few shots of the church interior where a wider lens maybe useful but these are just a few and the 24 on FF is pretty wide.

Why do you care about corner sharpness for a wedding ? Doesn t seem to be a factor in many shots.

I am sure there are exceptions but I would bet that the 17-35 would be used at 24-35 which could be handled with the 24-70.

I would rather have a fast 50 or 85 on my 2nd body to control the background and give me the speed to balance with the ambient light.

F4 for weddings wouldn t work for me.
 

jlancasterd

Active member
You always find incredible machineries, John.
I'm not into trains myself but always look at your photos closely, they feature a lot of surprising details -this one's indeed particularly "bristling" with details.

(sorry for the OT :eek:)
The Ffestiniog Railway is home to lots of peculiar machinery - that's one of its attractions! Also, there's so much preserved steam and other old machinery in the UK that it's relatively easy to find more. people involved with the FR are also pretty inventive - witness some of the participants in the recent 'Quirks and Curiosities' event:

View attachment 31310

View attachment 31313

View attachment 31311

View attachment 31312
 
Last edited:
Couple of things that I don t think were mentioned. Why do you need anything wider than the 24 on the 24-70/2.8 nikkor? Since it came out the 24-70/2.8 seemed like the one lens solution for most weddings .

Wider than 28mm causes too much distortion in a face unless its centered.

There are a few shots of the church interior where a wider lens maybe useful but these are just a few and the 24 on FF is pretty wide.

Why do you care about corner sharpness for a wedding ? Doesn t seem to be a factor in many shots.

I am sure there are exceptions but I would bet that the 17-35 would be used at 24-35 which could be handled with the 24-70.

I would rather have a fast 50 or 85 on my 2nd body to control the background and give me the speed to balance with the ambient light.

F4 for weddings wouldn t work for me.
Roger,

You are addressing all of my concerns! I have the Beast... the 28-70. For wide shots (ie church exteriors and what not) I have my ZF 21 2.8.

A guy I shoot with was getting some wonderful shots with his Canon 16-35 2.8, which was making me think about the switch. I'm wondering if my money is better spent getting the 24-70 which is legendary. Or the older 17-35 workhorse.

I too am concerned about f4 on the big side.

Ugh.

Everyone else, great input here and wonderful images!!! Lots to consider for sure!!!
 

Lloyd

Active member
Roger,

You are addressing all of my concerns! I have the Beast... the 28-70. For wide shots (ie church exteriors and what not) I have my ZF 21 2.8.

A guy I shoot with was getting some wonderful shots with his Canon 16-35 2.8, which was making me think about the switch. I'm wondering if my money is better spent getting the 24-70 which is legendary. Or the older 17-35 workhorse.

I too am concerned about f4 on the big side.

Ugh.

Everyone else, great input here and wonderful images!!! Lots to consider for sure!!!
I know we're getting a bit OT, but it's all about the viability of the 16-35, right?

My main lens for weddings is my 28-70 (wish it was the 24-70, but I don't own one). Actually, I wish they would update the 24-120, as I often wish I had a little more reach on the long end. Second body usually has the 85, but occasionally the 50. HOWEVER, during receptions, I most often use the 14-24. I like the wide perspective, and I'm just getting fun shots most of the time. I'll even occasionally use the fisheye during dances, "look who's here" shots, etc. This is where I think I'd use the 16-35.

As for aperture, since in a lot of indoor weddings I have to use flash, I'm most often at 5.6 anyway... it's what David Ziser calls the "aperture of convenience". I use the prime for wide open, soft background, available light stuff.

You can get great shots with wide lenses, and I often use it even for portraits. A lot of brides I shoot these days want funky, urban stuff, and wide works well there, but often even classic portraits can be done wide with a little care. For example, this one shot with the 14-24 @21mm. I used to do environmental portraits as a PJ with my 20/2.8 all the time.

View attachment 31327
 
Last edited:
Lloyd... I know you're a huge fan of the 14-24 and I'm kicking myself for not buying Matt's.

Sunday I've got my usual kit and I'll see if I think I'm missing something on the wide end. I never feel like I do when I'm there, but then I see other's work with UWA lenses and I wonder.
 
Top