Ditch my 24-120 f/4 VR for the 16-35 f/4 VR?

[nerwin]

I know what you are thinking...two COMPLETELY different lenses. However, for as long as I've owned the 24-120 f/4 VR, I very rarely use the extra range of this lens, I hardly go past 50mm. I am almost always shooting wide between 24-35mm with this lens and the thing that bugs me a lot is the zoom creep, almost everytime when I'm out walking around with this lens, it nearly fully extend by it self. I tried the lens bands and what not and they don't seem to help much. Its just very annoying.

My copy of the 24-120 f/4 VR seems to be an excellent copy, it's quite sharp and I'm very happy with the performance. It is a great walk around lens but I've always like to shoot wide. Maybe that's my style? I don't know.

For a while I've been planning on getting the 18-35G but I'm pretty sure once I get that lens, the 24-120 f/4 while rarely see daylight so I'm thinking why don't I just ditch my 24-120 f/4 and get the 16-35 f/4 VR, it has the range I typically use most of the time and it has VR too so it would be great for video and low light hand held shots. Also doesn't have zoom creep because it's all internal. According to my research, the 16-35 f/4 VR is actually a hair lighter than the 24-120 f/4 but quite a bit larger as well.

I'm not entirely sure what I want to do. I'm hoping to see someone here at TPF who has a 16-35 f/4 VR would like to share their thoughts on that lens, if its worth getting the VR, larger size, slighter wide, better build quality over the 18-35G.

The only thing that sucks about ditching the 24-120 f/4 is that its a great event lens, covers a huge range with constant f/4 but that zoom creep is REALLY annoying to me. Nikon should have put a lock on the lens because its so heavy, its just inevitable unless you carry it around your neck (ouch).

 

[jdag]

When I had my Nikon setup I enjoyed the 24-120. As you said, it is very versatile. But the creep was an annoyance, which I solved with a lens band:

https://www.amazon.com/Lens-Band-St...UTF8&qid=1471782980&sr=8-1&keywords=lens+band

 

[nerwin]

When I had my Nikon setup I enjoyed the 24-120. As you said, it is very versatile. But the creep was an annoyance, which I solved with a lens band:

https://www.amazon.com/Lens-Band-St...UTF8&qid=1471782980&sr=8-1&keywords=lens+band

I have one, doesn't work on mine haha.

 

[jdag]

Too bad...it worked perfectly for me. In any event, I personally would not have traded the 24-120 for the 16-35, but I rarely shoot wide.

 

[nerwin]

Too bad...it worked perfectly for me. In any event, I personally would not have traded the 24-120 for the 16-35, but I rarely shoot wide.

I haven't done anything yet, trying to decide what I want to do first.

If I was to by the 16-35, I honestly don't think I'd even use the 24-120 anymore.

 

[PaulWog]

Are you planning on doing landscapes?

Tripod & ND filters! Long exposure is fun.

You will get wet, dirty, and/or just really close to your subject matter though.

 

[nerwin]

Are you planning on doing landscapes?

Tripod & ND filters! Long exposure is fun.

You will get wet, dirty, and/or just really close to your subject matter though.

Maybe someday.

I know you have the 15-30 but that is just too heavy for my liking. Great lens, just nothing I want to carry around when traveling or at events. The 24-120 is heavy as it is. The 16-35 is a bit lighter, not that id notice but I sure would with the tamron haha.

The 16-35 has lots of mixed reviews, some say its crap and other say its as good as the 14-24 (doubt it) but I just cant see the cheaply made 18-35g be THAT much better than the 16-35.

Only reason why I want to replace the 24-120 is because the zoom creep is really annoying me and I just dont like do it all lenses. I really prefer primes because it forces me to slow down and think.

By the way, I had the 12-24 when I was shooting DX. But ive been missing UWA since switching to full frame.

 

[PaulWog]

Maybe someday.

I know you have the 15-30 but that is just too heavy for my liking. Great lens, just nothing I want to carry around when traveling or at events. The 24-120 is heavy as it is. The 16-35 is a bit lighter, not that id notice but I sure would with the tamron haha.

The 16-35 has lots of mixed reviews, some say its crap and other say its as good as the 14-24 (doubt it) but I just cant see the cheaply made 18-35g be THAT much better than the 16-35.

Only reason why I want to replace the 24-120 is because the zoom creep is really annoying me and I just dont like do it all lenses. I really prefer primes because it forces me to slow down and think.

By the way, I had the 12-24 when I was shooting DX. But ive been missing UWA since switching to full frame.

Huh? I think you're talking about something entirely different from what I was talking about. I never mentioned my gear at all.

Are you sure you want an UWA lens? You're talking 100% about gear here. I was talking about photography.

 

[nerwin]

Maybe someday.

I know you have the 15-30 but that is just too heavy for my liking. Great lens, just nothing I want to carry around when traveling or at events. The 24-120 is heavy as it is. The 16-35 is a bit lighter, not that id notice but I sure would with the tamron haha.

The 16-35 has lots of mixed reviews, some say its crap and other say its as good as the 14-24 (doubt it) but I just cant see the cheaply made 18-35g be THAT much better than the 16-35.

Only reason why I want to replace the 24-120 is because the zoom creep is really annoying me and I just dont like do it all lenses. I really prefer primes because it forces me to slow down and think.

By the way, I had the 12-24 when I was shooting DX. But ive been missing UWA since switching to full frame.

Huh? I think you're talking about something entirely different from what I was talking about. I never mentioned my gear at all.

Are you sure you want an UWA lens? You're talking 100% about gear here. I was talking about photography.

I saw it in your sig...

I do want a ultra wide angle lens because I had one before and I miss it.

 

[PaulWog]

I saw it in your sig...

I do want a ultra wide angle lens because I had one before and I miss it.

Okie dokie

But seriously though if you have an UWA lens, get a tripod and ND filters. Long exposure is really wonderful.

 

[nerwin]

I saw it in your sig...

I do want a ultra wide angle lens because I had one before and I miss it.

Okie dokie

But seriously though if you have an UWA lens, get a tripod and ND filters. Long exposure is really wonderful.

I have a tripod! Not a cheap one either. ND filters are on my list of things to get. I do a lot of car stuff too and boy I sure miss having a ultra wide. I had some awesome landscape shots when I was shooting with d7000 and 12-24.

I mean 24mm is wide on full frame, but its not 16mm!!

Would you rather take the 16-35 over the 18-35g for landscapes?

 

[PaulWog]

I have a tripod! Not a cheap one either. ND filters are on my list of things to get. I do a lot of car stuff too and boy I sure miss having a ultra wide. I had some awesome landscape shots when I was shooting with d7000 and 12-24.

I mean 24mm is wide on full frame, but its not 16mm!!

Would you rather take the 16-35 over the 18-35g for landscapes?

If I were on an extreme budget I'd go with the 18-35... but I would definitely prefer the 16-35. That 2mm means quite a lot more width.

I don't share a ton of my photos, but I also don't get out as often as I would like to do photography. This shot is from a month and a half ago, it's probably my favorite one I've done with my 15-30 so far: Rocky Water

The wider the better, but it also meant I got a lot of sand and salt water all on and in my tripod.

 

[nerwin]

I have a tripod! Not a cheap one either. ND filters are on my list of things to get. I do a lot of car stuff too and boy I sure miss having a ultra wide. I had some awesome landscape shots when I was shooting with d7000 and 12-24.

I mean 24mm is wide on full frame, but its not 16mm!!

Would you rather take the 16-35 over the 18-35g for landscapes?

If I were on an extreme budget I'd go with the 18-35... but I would definitely prefer the 16-35. That 2mm means quite a lot more width.

I don't share a ton of my photos, but I also don't get out as often as I would like to do photography. This shot is from a month and a half ago, it's probably my favorite one I've done with my 15-30 so far: Rocky Water

The wider the better, but it also meant I got a lot of sand and salt water all on and in my tripod.

Well because I plan on selling the 24-120, I can easily afford the 16-35. If I was to keep the 24-120, id get the 18-35 but id probably end up not using the 24-120 anyways because I shoot wide most of the time anyways, so might as well get the 16-35! Haha

 

[PaulWog]

I have a tripod! Not a cheap one either. ND filters are on my list of things to get. I do a lot of car stuff too and boy I sure miss having a ultra wide. I had some awesome landscape shots when I was shooting with d7000 and 12-24.

I mean 24mm is wide on full frame, but its not 16mm!!

Would you rather take the 16-35 over the 18-35g for landscapes?

If I were on an extreme budget I'd go with the 18-35... but I would definitely prefer the 16-35. That 2mm means quite a lot more width.

I don't share a ton of my photos, but I also don't get out as often as I would like to do photography. This shot is from a month and a half ago, it's probably my favorite one I've done with my 15-30 so far: Rocky Water

The wider the better, but it also meant I got a lot of sand and salt water all on and in my tripod.

Well because I plan on selling the 24-120, I can easily afford the 16-35. If I was to keep the 24-120, id get the 18-35 but id probably end up not using the 24-120 anyways because I shoot wide most of the time anyways, so might as well get the 16-35! Haha

Just go for it.

 

[nerwin]

I have a tripod! Not a cheap one either. ND filters are on my list of things to get. I do a lot of car stuff too and boy I sure miss having a ultra wide. I had some awesome landscape shots when I was shooting with d7000 and 12-24.

I mean 24mm is wide on full frame, but its not 16mm!!

Would you rather take the 16-35 over the 18-35g for landscapes?

If I were on an extreme budget I'd go with the 18-35... but I would definitely prefer the 16-35. That 2mm means quite a lot more width.

I don't share a ton of my photos, but I also don't get out as often as I would like to do photography. This shot is from a month and a half ago, it's probably my favorite one I've done with my 15-30 so far: Rocky Water

The wider the better, but it also meant I got a lot of sand and salt water all on and in my tripod.

Well because I plan on selling the 24-120, I can easily afford the 16-35. If I was to keep the 24-120, id get the 18-35 but id probably end up not using the 24-120 anyways because I shoot wide most of the time anyways, so might as well get the 16-35! Haha

Just go for it.

Have you handled the 16-35?