Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 14 of 14

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

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    82
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    32

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

    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

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    528
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    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.

  3. #3
    Subscriber & Workshop Member GrahamWelland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, WA
    Posts
    5,800
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    564

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

    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.

  4. #4
    anselgrey23
    Guest

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

    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.

  5. #5
    Senior Member deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    310
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    16-35 is much better compare to 17-35.
    17-35 is soft compare to 16-35
    Leica M9 | SE 18 | Lux 24 | Lux 50 | ZM 35 | Nikon D700 | 35/1.8 | 45 PC-E | 50/1.4 | 70-200 VR II | SB 800+600 |SF 58|

  6. #6
    Senior Member Jason Muelver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    653
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    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.
    http://jasonedwardphoto.com http://jasonmuelver.tumblr.com
    Nikon FX, Leica M8, Mamiya 645, Canon F-1

  7. #7
    RRRoger
    Guest

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

    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.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Jason Muelver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    653
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    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.
    http://jasonedwardphoto.com http://jasonmuelver.tumblr.com
    Nikon FX, Leica M8, Mamiya 645, Canon F-1

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    528
    Post Thanks / Like

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

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

  10. #10
    Senior Member Jason Muelver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    653
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Yeah... my problem is I use Aperture. So I'm trying to figure out what's the best plug in? Or bite the bullet and get CS5?
    http://jasonedwardphoto.com http://jasonmuelver.tumblr.com
    Nikon FX, Leica M8, Mamiya 645, Canon F-1

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    528
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    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.

  12. #12
    Senior Member Jason Muelver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    653
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    Yeah... I think so too. Ugh. Pay to play, right?
    http://jasonedwardphoto.com http://jasonmuelver.tumblr.com
    Nikon FX, Leica M8, Mamiya 645, Canon F-1

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    528
    Post Thanks / Like

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

    I am afraid so

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    82
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    32

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

    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.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •