Menu
What's new
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

Jason Muelver

Jason Muelver

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??
 
P

Paratom

Well-known member
They say the 17-35 needs to be stopped down to around f8 to get maximum sharpness.
Also the 16-35 is said to draw more contrasty/with more pop.
So I assume iamge quality wise at comparable f-stops the 16-35 shoud beat the 17-35.
On the downside the 16-35 is larger than the 17-35 and doesnt have f2.8.
But then again the 16-35 has IS.
 
routlaw

routlaw

Member
Jason Muelver said:
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??
Click to expand...
Jason, I used to own the 17-35 and regardless of this lens somewhat cult status I found it to be rather mediocre at best regardless of the f-stop used. It was built well and focused fast, thats about it. I know of others whose opinion I trusted felt the same way about the lens. Lets face it many of these older legacy lenses were built for film days and the newer entries have been totally redesigned and at least theoretically improved upon. With few exceptions this has been my experience.

As for the 1 stop slower speed of the 16-35 VR given the excellent high ISO performance of Nikons cameras especially the D3 series, its probably a moot point loosing this one stop. The VR capabilities will probably serve you well for the type of photography you intend to do with it.

So my vote hands down the 16-35 VR.

Hope this helps.

Rob
 
ptomsu

ptomsu

Workshop Member
I also owned the 17-35 and was never happy with its performance. I actually owned to samples of this lens, so else both were bad or this lens in general was/is not a winner.

I assume that the new 16-35 being one of Nikons latest designs and incorporating nano coating and VR will easily top the 17-35.
 
ptomsu

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Lloyd said:
Good question! It's one of my all-time favorite Nikon lenses. I did a 3 hour shoot on Monday, and probably used the 14-24 for 85% of it!
Click to expand...
Maybe it is size? This would be my only reason to use the 16-35 instead of the 14-24.
 
M

m_driscoll

New member
Lloyd said:
Good question! It's one of my all-time favorite Nikon lenses. I did a 3 hour shoot on Monday, and probably used the 14-24 for 85% of it!
Click to expand...
ptomsu said:
Maybe it is size? This would be my only reason to use the 16-35 instead of the 14-24.
Click to expand...
Lloyd/Ptomsu: The 14-24mm is a great lens! One of my all time favorites. However, I'm selling it because the 16-35mm is smaller, lighter, has VRII, more useable zoom range (IMHO), takes a filter, and has very good reviews. I'll see how i miss the speed, the 14mm wide end, and if the increased distortion at 16mm over the 14-24 bothers me.

Cheers, Matt

http://mdriscoll.zenfolio.com
 
A

AlexLF

Well-known member
m_driscoll said:
Lloyd/Ptomsu: The 14-24mm is a great lens! One of my all time favorites. However, I'm selling it because the 16-35mm is smaller, lighter, has VRII, more useable zoom range (IMHO), takes a filter, and has very good reviews. I'll see how i miss the speed, the 14mm wide end, and if the increased distortion at 16mm over the 14-24 bothers me.

Cheers, Matt

http://mdriscoll.zenfolio.com
Click to expand...
Matt, in case you still keep them both could you please make pics from both (equal in focal length and aperture, on a tripod and with MUP)? I hope that's not too much :)
 
M

m_driscoll

New member
Comparison photos of 16-35mm f/4 VRII and 14-24mm f/2.8. I'll post more at 24mm (both) and 35mm (16-35mm). Cheers, Matt

1. 14-24mm; 14mm; 1/2000s @ f/2.8; ISO 320


2. 14-24mm; 14mm; 1/250s @ f/8; ISO 320


3. 14-24mm; 16mm; 1/1250s @ f/4; ISO 320


4. 16-35mm; 16mm; 1/800s @ f/4; ISO 320


5. 14-24mm; 16mm; 1/250s @ f/8; ISO 320


6. 16-35mm; 16mm; 1/200s @ f/8; ISO 320


http://mdriscoll.zenfolio.com/img/v14/p632928518-5.jpg
 
M

m_driscoll

New member
Second round. Hope i didn't screw them up. The 16-35mm F/4 VRII is a very good lens. Build quality isn't as stout as the metal 14-24mm f/2.8. OOF is better at f/2.8 (need to get the 24mm f/4). So far no reason to regret selling the 14-24. Cheers, Matt

1. 14-24mm f/2.8; 24mm; 1/1600 @ f/2.8; ISO 320


2. 14-24mm f/2.8; 24mm; 1/640 @ f/4; ISO 320


3. 16-35mm f/4; 24mm; 1/800 @ f/4; ISO 320


4. 14-24mm f/2.8; 24mm; 1/250 @ f/8; ISO 320


5. 16-35mm f/4; 24mm; 1/160 @ f/8; ISO 320


6. 16-35mm f/4; 35mm; 1/800 @ f/4; ISO 320


6. 16-35mm f/4; 35mm; 1/200 @ f/8; ISO 320


http://mdrioscoll.zenfolio.com
 
A

AlexLF

Well-known member
Matt, thank you very much! MUP was mirror lock up and should be really MLU :) Don't know why I typed MUP...

Sorry to bother you again but if you haven't deleted the original images could you please share crops at the bottom left corner for example? This would be enough to evaluate sharpness of both lenses!
 
Jason Muelver

Jason Muelver

Member
I think you typed MUP cause isn't that what it says on the dial? :-D

OK, Matt. Great shots. Is it a keeper? The 16-35 is a more usable range for me too!

Looks like a keeper from those shots.
 
Lloyd

Lloyd

Active member
Interesting comparisons. From what I can tell looking at the shots with both lenses at 24mm, the 14-24 seems to hold a little more detail in the tree trunk. Granted, there are lots of variables at play that could impact that impression, and it's just pixel peeping to the enth degree, so it's just my take. That's wide open for both lenses however, so you'd think the 16-35 @ f4 would have the edge.

I think for me, the appeal of the new zoom is the range, there are lots of times I wish the 14-24 had just a little more on the high end, shooting a wedding, for example. I know in my PJ days, it would have been a no-brainer. I would have gladly given up a little speed and absolute IQ for the greater utility. Especially on a camera capable of great results at high ISO. (Hmm, sounds like my explanation about selling the 200/2, doesn't it.)
 
jonoslack

jonoslack

Active member
Lloyd said:
I think for me, the appeal of the new zoom is the range, there are lots of times I wish the 14-24 had just a little more on the high end, shooting a wedding, for example. I know in my PJ days, it would have been a no-brainer. I would have gladly given up a little speed and absolute IQ for the greater utility. Especially on a camera capable of great results at high ISO. (Hmm, sounds like my explanation about selling the 200/2, doesn't it.)
Click to expand...
Hi Lloyd
Certainly I found that I used the 14-24 less than I might have liked because of the limiting long end - if I were in the market I'd certainly prefer the 16-35 as long as the quality was consistent.
I had two 17-35 and I thought both of them were suspect at the corners - so, if I were the OP I'd definitely be going for the 16-35 for wedding work.
 
A

AlexLF

Well-known member
I'm going to buy one of those lenses next week. But as I said in another thread it's all for landscapes so every pixel counts :) At the end of the month I'm flying to Spain and France .. hopefully (I already bought tickets but no visa yet). And I'm taking my LF gear and Nikon with 24-70 + this my future lens. Obviously, no way I could carry both Linhof and Nikon in the mountains (well, I'll ask my wife if she'd take Nikon with 2 lenses ... to haul :eek::) ). But it will depend on a hike which one to get.

BTW, I turned down the Zeiss and PC-E 24 because I have LF camera and lenses - I have Rodenstock manual focus lenses and tilt-shift on my Linhof so why get all that manual stuff for Nikon..

Matt, thank you in advance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top