Mr.Gale
Member
Last edited by a moderator:
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 Rebates
- Thread starter Mr.Gale
- Start date
bensonga
Well-known member
I see there is a $300 rebate on the 16-35 f4 VR lens. It 's really the only lens here which interests me now, since I already own quite a few of these lenses. Any thoughts on how the 16-35 would perform on a D800e? I'm assuming it would be fine on my D700, D2X and D7100.
Gary
Gary
Gary, I'm sure I'm in the minority but I've come close to despising this lens. Yes, I know despising is a strong word...so alright, I'll say strongly dislike this lens...LOL. Sure the excessive, no make that rediculous barrel distortion at its wider docal lengths can be for the most part corrected in post processing especially for landscape shots but for interior use for people or group shots, correction of main subject often means other interior objects get severely distorted. In other words can't have it both ways.
I've had some superb Photoshop experts try on my files. My comments reflect use of the lens on a full frame camera. My prefered wide angle zoom is either the venerable Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 which is a lower contrast lens that is helped by stopping down or the Tokina 16-28mm f2.8 that has lovely high contrast and excellent sharpness across the frame when stopped down bit and is a far lower cost lens than the Nikon.
Yes some people love this lens but for my use, an uncontested divorce was in order.
Dave (D&A)
I've had some superb Photoshop experts try on my files. My comments reflect use of the lens on a full frame camera. My prefered wide angle zoom is either the venerable Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 which is a lower contrast lens that is helped by stopping down or the Tokina 16-28mm f2.8 that has lovely high contrast and excellent sharpness across the frame when stopped down bit and is a far lower cost lens than the Nikon.
Yes some people love this lens but for my use, an uncontested divorce was in order.
Dave (D&A)
bensonga
Well-known member
Thanks Dave! That's exactly the kind of straight forward info I appreciate so much here on GetDPI.
I don't shoot ultra wides very often and quite frankly the 24-120 VR has served me well thus far, so maybe I'll just put this money towards the Zeiss ZF.2 50mm Makro-Planar I've been wanting for so long.
Gary
I don't shoot ultra wides very often and quite frankly the 24-120 VR has served me well thus far, so maybe I'll just put this money towards the Zeiss ZF.2 50mm Makro-Planar I've been wanting for so long.
Gary
Hi Gary,
I rarely use such harsh words especially when I realize that for some, the Nikon 16-35 VR has most everything some are looking for in a wide angle zoom. Good range of focal length, good sharpness overall and VR. For me though, they accomplished some of the positive optical properties by allowing the excessive distortion to run rampant. In a $450 lens like the Samyang 14mm, fine (and they too achieved their high degree of sharpness by allowing extreme high levels of distortion)...but that's strictly a single focal length ultra wide that's generally used for a more specialized narrower range of imagery as opposed to a more versatile wide angle zoom that incorporates use in a wider variety of applications.
The Nikon being a zoom with attributes described above, exhibited it's excessive distortion not only at its wider 16mm focal length, unfortunately it extends well into its 21-22mm range. It's also a lens that is far more expensive than the Samyang and on a personal note, it's one of the few Nikon lenses that I don't like it's barrel dimensions for a wide angle zoom nor its handling and overall balance.
In contrast, the Tokina 16-35 mm f2.8 lens although in some respects in size and shape is similar to the large Nikon 14-24 and also cannot take front filters (like the 14-24), has a slightly extended focal length range, a new cleverly designed lens cap, extremely low distortion for a wide angle zoom throughout its range and if a good sample is found, impressively sharp across the frame at most focal length settings, especially if stopped down. To boot, it's not that much more expensive that the Samyang 14mm. Oh did I mention very good color rendition with very good contrast? It's drawback is there is most definitely sample to sample variation and the latest production runs seem to be marketly improved.
Again lens selection can often times be subjective but in my particular case, I felt I had to look elsewhere for a wide angle zoom other than the Nikon.
Dave (D&A)
I rarely use such harsh words especially when I realize that for some, the Nikon 16-35 VR has most everything some are looking for in a wide angle zoom. Good range of focal length, good sharpness overall and VR. For me though, they accomplished some of the positive optical properties by allowing the excessive distortion to run rampant. In a $450 lens like the Samyang 14mm, fine (and they too achieved their high degree of sharpness by allowing extreme high levels of distortion)...but that's strictly a single focal length ultra wide that's generally used for a more specialized narrower range of imagery as opposed to a more versatile wide angle zoom that incorporates use in a wider variety of applications.
The Nikon being a zoom with attributes described above, exhibited it's excessive distortion not only at its wider 16mm focal length, unfortunately it extends well into its 21-22mm range. It's also a lens that is far more expensive than the Samyang and on a personal note, it's one of the few Nikon lenses that I don't like it's barrel dimensions for a wide angle zoom nor its handling and overall balance.
In contrast, the Tokina 16-35 mm f2.8 lens although in some respects in size and shape is similar to the large Nikon 14-24 and also cannot take front filters (like the 14-24), has a slightly extended focal length range, a new cleverly designed lens cap, extremely low distortion for a wide angle zoom throughout its range and if a good sample is found, impressively sharp across the frame at most focal length settings, especially if stopped down. To boot, it's not that much more expensive that the Samyang 14mm. Oh did I mention very good color rendition with very good contrast? It's drawback is there is most definitely sample to sample variation and the latest production runs seem to be marketly improved.
Again lens selection can often times be subjective but in my particular case, I felt I had to look elsewhere for a wide angle zoom other than the Nikon.
Dave (D&A)
Last edited:
For similar money, I find the 17-35 a far more desirable option, FWIW. Far less distortion, very sharp centrally even wide open across the zoom range; stop down to f5.6 or 8 and all but the extreme corners are sharp. Best for me is I find the slight softness at the corners is actually rather pleasant and can be used to advantage at wider apertures.
bensonga
Well-known member
Thanks Dave and Jack. That Tokina 16-28/2.8 sounds pretty good, though I've never owned a Tokina lens. My local dealer has one in stock, so I'll check it out this week. At $699, it's certainly an attractive price. Since I don't expect to use an ultra-wide zoom very often, that probably makes more sense for me than spending the extra $1,000 to get the Nikon 17-35/2.8. I guess the only real downside to the Tokina is not being able to use filters, while the Nikon is threaded for 77mm. It's too bad there are no rebates on the Nikon 17-35.
Gary
Gary
My apologies -- when I bought mine, they were right around $1200 for the US version while the 16-35 was a little under $1000 -- I had no idea the 17-35 had increased so much!
Gary, check out the Nikon 18-35. A great lens and less money than the Tokina, and not the quality control issues of the Tokina.
Up until I acquired the Tokina, I used the Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 and one of its advantages was that it took regular 77mm front filters. Micro contrast though is on the lower side compared to the Tokina and it may not get as sharp in the corners, but its any extremely attractive option if you find used one at a good price. Images with a good sample of the Tokina, simply pop and it in many respects reminds me of some of the wide angle Zeiss lenses in terms of contrast and color depth....assuming you find a good sample.
Dave (D&A)
Dave (D&A)
bensonga
Well-known member
Guess I won't be taking advantage of the Nikon rebates after all.
I found a Nikon 17-35 f2.8 in EX+ condition at KEH with the hood, caps and case for a bit more than the 16-35 after rebate, so I'm going to give the 17-35/2.8 a try. Hopefully, it will be a good sample.
Thanks Dave and Jack, I really appreciated your observations, experience and suggestions! :thumbup:
Gary
I found a Nikon 17-35 f2.8 in EX+ condition at KEH with the hood, caps and case for a bit more than the 16-35 after rebate, so I'm going to give the 17-35/2.8 a try. Hopefully, it will be a good sample.
Thanks Dave and Jack, I really appreciated your observations, experience and suggestions! :thumbup:
Gary
Gary, glad you found one at a good price. Just something to keep in mind. A very large run of earlier samples of the Nikon were clearly different in optical performance from late runs. This was primarily in how it performed in the more open apertures and wider focal length settings. One of the hallmarks of many samples (both early and late) is an extremely soft image across the entire frame at f2.8 at 17mm which clearly leaps in optical performance by stopping down a single f-stop.
Dave (D&A)
Dave (D&A)
GrahamWelland
Subscriber & Workshop Member
The 17-35 is also affectionately known as Mr Squeaky. You'll know what I mean eventually ...
Gary, although I didn't specifically mention it in my previous post above, the first thing that came to mind when you mentioned that you just ordered the lens from KEH was "good, if the sample isn't up to par, Gary can certainly return it for a refund from KEH". I was hoping that once you had received the lens and put it through its paces, you'd let us know if there were any things you observed that you questioned about the lens.
Graham is right on the money with the nickname for the lens. It refers to the AF -S motor in many samples of the 17-35 f2.8 that squeak when you first press the shutter button to AFS, especially as you allow the lens to focus from one end of its focusing range to another to test for the squeek.
When you first get the lens and mount it, hold your hand in front of the glass and allow the lens to AF back and forth through its entire range. Some samples will squeek once or twice and then remain quiet for the rest of their use till the next time you pull the lens out of your bag. Others will squeek every time you AF. Some lightly squeeking samples will remain that way for years while others will have the very expensive AFS motor failure in a matter of months. No way to tell. A quiet lens may have already had its motor replaced.
See how the lens both optically preforms and listen for the motor squeek, and then you can determine whether the sample is worth keeping or not. I hope you get a keeper.
*** Though here's the bigger, more important question....does Graham give cute nicknames to all his photographic equipment? :ROTFL:
Dave (D&A)
Graham is right on the money with the nickname for the lens. It refers to the AF -S motor in many samples of the 17-35 f2.8 that squeak when you first press the shutter button to AFS, especially as you allow the lens to focus from one end of its focusing range to another to test for the squeek.
When you first get the lens and mount it, hold your hand in front of the glass and allow the lens to AF back and forth through its entire range. Some samples will squeek once or twice and then remain quiet for the rest of their use till the next time you pull the lens out of your bag. Others will squeek every time you AF. Some lightly squeeking samples will remain that way for years while others will have the very expensive AFS motor failure in a matter of months. No way to tell. A quiet lens may have already had its motor replaced.
See how the lens both optically preforms and listen for the motor squeek, and then you can determine whether the sample is worth keeping or not. I hope you get a keeper.
*** Though here's the bigger, more important question....does Graham give cute nicknames to all his photographic equipment? :ROTFL:
Dave (D&A)
Last edited:
Gary,
FWIW my 17-35 does not squeak, and it is laser sharp in the central half of the image wide open. The circle of sharpness extends significantly at 2.8, and by 4 it is sharp nearly to the corners. I do have one of the later versions.
When I had the lens, it didn't squeak at first! Only did after owning it a couple of years later and then not using it for a long while. After taking it out of my camera bag and mounting it and using it for a few, maybe a half dozen shots, the squeak just went away. So it may or may not bother you!