20mm f/1.8G or 16-35 f/4: help me decide!

[DScience]

Hi there!

So I have a conundrum that I was hoping you could shed some light on.

I currently have these two lenses (Nikon 20mm f/1.8G & 16-35mm f/4) and I cannot decide which one to keep (or both). I originally purchased the 20mm about 6 months ago as I was getting into landscape and astrophotography. I'm extremely impressed with the lens and have been very happy with it. However I kept seeing these amazing wide angle shots using the 16-35mm, and so I ended up finding a mint condition copy on craigslist for $725 and couldn't pass it up. I've been shooting with it for a while now, and although I love it, I don't think it's quite as good at the 20mm (at 20mm of course). Plus, for my purposes (backpacking with camera equipment) it's also quite heavy!

Thus I am really considering selling the 16-35, but a part of me just doesn't want to let it go. What are some of your thoughts on this? Here are my considerations:

-I do landscape photography combined with backpacking, thus weight is of extreme importance.

-I also enjoy shooting some astrophotography, thus bringing the 16-35 with the 20, has been pretty common in the past, and VERY heavy. Thus ideally I would like to just bring one, but the 16 isn't great for astro

-I love the extra wide angle from the 16, which is the main reason I am reluctant to get rid of it.

Thanks for the advice friends!

BTW: 20mm
Perspective by Daniel Sanculi, on Flickr

16-35mm
Sunset river shot by Daniel Sanculi, on Flickr

 

[astroNikon]

I use a 18-35 for some astro stuff, and I like using it normally at 18mm
But I have an older, more compact and much lighter version than the current offering.

take a look at all your photos with the 16-35 and see at what focal length was used. If there's a lot in the 18-22 range than I would definitely consider selling it and sticking with the 20. If you are at 16 or 28+ a lot then you'll be removing a focal range that you may need / want.

 

[Dave442]

I would for sure keep the 20. If you were not off in the woods then the 16-35mm might be a better option, but where you are probably always hiking-in then the lighter lens can just make getting to the spot more enjoyable.

 

[tirediron]

Why isn't the 16-35 good for astro work?

 

[DScience]

Why isn't the 16-35 good for astro work?

F/4??

 

[DScience]

I would for sure keep the 20. If you were not off in the woods then the 16-35mm might be a better option, but where you are probably always hiking-in then the lighter lens can just make getting to the spot more enjoyable.

Thanks for the input, I agree. I am going to sell it today, but i'm so sad.

 

[Derrel]

I think it pays to look at this type of stuff as a LONG-term investment, and to keep firmly in mind which of one's lenses is mostly a single-purpose tool, and which is a versatile, multi-function tool. A tire-iron is GREAT for loosening and tightening lug nuts....but a large crescent wrench is much,much more-versatile. The fact that I own an 11-inch chef's knife does not mean I do not also need a paring knife, a carving knife, and a boning knife.

16-35 has that weird distortion issue...but also have a LOT of the absolutely MOST-desirable focal lengths in one, single lens. A guy needs a wide prime ANDF a wide-angle zoom, like a 16-35. The 20mm prime just can NOT do the job of the zoom at 16,17,18 or 24,28,or 35mm. The prime is the one-trick pony.

 

[DScience]

I think it pays to look at this type of stuff as a LONG-term investment, and to keep firmly in mind which of one's lenses is mostly a single-purpose tool, and which is a versatile, multi-function tool. A tire-iron is GREAT for loosening and tightening lug nuts....but a large crescent wrench is much,much more-versatile. The fact that I own an 11-inch chef's knife does not mean I do not also need a paring knife, a carving knife, and a boning knife.

16-35 has that weird distortion issue...but also have a LOT of the absolutely MOST-desirable focal lengths in one, single lens. A guy needs a wide prime ANDF a wide-angle zoom, like a 16-35. The 20mm prime just can NOT do the job of the zoom at 16,17,18 or 24,28,or 35mm. The prime is the one-trick pony.

Thanks Derrel (now can you go help me with my tripod thread? lol).

I appreciate this way of looking at the situation, it makes me think. To be quite honest, this is my FIRST ZOOM, so I don't really know anything about zooms. I've used the lens on two trips now, and the first one only at 16mm, but he recent trip I stated playing with framing the image more using the zoom, and I sort of liked it. But I guess I don't totally see the advantage of the multiple focal lengths, as I have been fine using primes since I started shooting.

 

[Derrel]

I saw the tripod thread...I have no opinions on any of those tiny pods...My favorite and most-used tripod weighs 13 pounds, then I put a 1.5 pound magnesium Gitzo head on top of that, so...I dunno...compact hiking and trekking gear is not my forte.

WIDE-angle zooms offer tremendous variation in "how deep" the scene is rendered. Wide-angle zooms allow the photographer to tremendously distort the near/far relationships, easily, and quickly. Wide-angle zooms allow a scene to be rendered as if what's close is very prominent, and what is far-away is very small and distant. The wide-angle zoom is a handy tool for working with the near/far or foreground/background relationships, and it allows you to do that quickly and easily. Also, the 35mm end becomes a very handy semi-normal, with a look that's very,very different from a 20,24,or 28mm lens.

Imagine owning a DVD collection that has ONE, single DVD in it. Then imagine owning twenty DVDs. Which collection offers the most variety? Would one reallllly good movie on DVD be as good as 20 pretty good films on DVD?

If this is your first-ever zoom lens, it might take some practice and some experimenting to figure out how to get the most value out of a 16-35mm zoom lens with VR in it.

 

[DScience]

I saw the tripod thread...I have no opinions on any of those tiny pods...My favorite and most-used tripod weighs 13 pounds, then I put a 1.5 pound magnesium Gitzo head on top of that, so...I dunno...compact hiking and trekking gear is not my forte.

WIDE-angle zooms offer tremendous variation in "how deep" the scene is rendered. Wide-angle zooms allow the photographer to tremendously distort the near/far relationships, easily, and quickly. Wide-angle zooms allow a scene to be rendered as if what's close is very prominent, and what is far-away is very small and distant. The wide-angle zoom is a handy tool for working with the near/far or foreground/background relationships, and it allows you to do that quickly and easily. Also, the 35mm end becomes a very handy semi-normal, with a look that's very,very different from a 20,24,or 28mm lens.

Imagine owning a DVD collection that has ONE, single DVD in it. Then imagine owning twenty DVDs. Which collection offers the most variety? Would one reallllly good movie on DVD be as good as 20 pretty good films on DVD?

If this is your first-ever zoom lens, it might take some practice and some experimenting to figure out how to get the most value out of a 16-35mm zoom lens with VR in it.

I guess more just about the weight different affecting image quality of the tripods...


But on this note, Can you talk a little more about paragraph I bolded. Specifically, what do you mean by 'distort' the near/far objects? You don't just mean DOF, like one in focus the other not, right? Also, how do you make what's close seem prominent, and what's far seem distant? LOL I feel like such a noob?!?

 

[astroNikon]

Why isn't the 16-35 good for astro work?

F/4??

hmmmm my cheap 18-35 is f/3.5-4.5 - faster than those expensive fixed aperture ones at 18?
guess I'll stick to my 12 inch diameter lens .. speaking of which it's getting dark and there's no moon nor clouds out tonight.

 

[DScience]

Why isn't the 16-35 good for astro work?

F/4??

hmmmm my cheap 18-35 is f/3.5-4.5 - faster than those expensive fixed aperture ones at 18?
guess I'll stick to my 12 inch diameter lens .. speaking of which it's getting dark and there's no moon nor clouds out tonight.

My new goal is to collect only gold-rimmed glass, with the exception of a few lenses such as the 135mm f/2, and older lenses.

j/j I really looked at the 18-35 lens for sure, but honestly I found a mint condition 16-35mm for less than a 18-35 brand new, and I couldn't pass it up. I can sell it for a profit easily. But you're right, the 18-35 is a fine lens indeed!

 

[tirediron]

Why isn't the 16-35 good for astro work?

F/4??

Okay, I'm not an astro shooter; what I know about the topic could be written on the head of a pin and still leave plenty of room for the Lord's Prayer; is a 1.4 - 2.8 aperture that critical, and if so, why?

 

[DScience]

Why isn't the 16-35 good for astro work?

F/4??

Okay, I'm not an astro shooter; what I know about the topic could be written on the head of a pin and still leave plenty of room for the Lord's Prayer; is a 1.4 - 2.8 aperture that critical, and if so, why?

Oh I'm sorry about that.

So with astorphotography, you just use your lens at infinity, wide open, for 30 second exposures. More than that will give you star trails, which actually can be quit appealing if done right. But if you want, say milky way shots, you need 30 seconds max. UNLESS, you get a rig that follows the earths rotation, and thus it will move with the earth and you can get incredible long exposures with ultra crisp milky way and stars.

Of course you can just bump your ISO up because cameras now a days can take it, but fast glass makes a huge difference too! Also, look at this shot here. I was taken with the 20mm f/1.8G, at NATIVE ISO!! It was just that the moon was half full, and just that light, with a aperture of 1.8, 30 second exposure, it does this:

Half moon nights by Daniel Sanculi, on Flickr

 

[DScience]

Here's another, with my 24mm f/2.8D, before I had the 1.8:

Milky Way Reflections by Daniel Sanculi, on Flickr