New wide angle zoom help.

[I3igcircle]

We are planning a trip to Hong Kong and I am looking for a new lens to help capture the trip.

I currently have a D600 and a 50mm 1.8G prime.

Will be shooting landscapes/architecture and photos of my two little boys.

I have been looking at the 17-35 2.8 or 14-24 2.8 newest choice brought up was the16-35 f4.

What is the best rout to go?

 

[sactown024]

I would go with this if I was buying it... the canon 16-35 is liek $2k right? I hear the sigma and Tamron are comparable for 1/3 of price....

Amazon.com: Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 EX DC OS HSM FLD Large Aperture Standard Zoom Lens for Canon Digital DSLR Camera: Camera & Photo

 

[tirediron]

If you have the money, it's a no-brainer. The Nikkor 14-24 blows every other UWA zoom out of the water. It is THE BEST UWA on the market, but it's also very spendy. The 17-35 is very good, but not as wide and those 3mm can make quite a difference. The 16-35 is okay... it distorts fairly significantly at 16-17mm and isn't really suitable for architecture, BUT the VR does mean that you can hand-hold it in almost impossibly dim conditions.

 

[I3igcircle]

The 16-35 Nikon is $1200 here. My original thought and choice was the 14-24 here it is the same cost $1600 as the 17-35.

I don't like that it doesn't accept filters stock though and 35mm is a good range that might come in handy no?

So you say go 14-24 then maybe get a 35mm prime or do I even need that range but 24-50 seems like a big gap.

 

[slow231]

i've heard the tokina 16-28 is right up there with the 14-24. you do give up 2mm and iirc some wide open corner sharpness, but they're only like 750 now at b+h ($100 mail in rebate). i'm a huge fan of tokina, on dx the 11-16 was untouchable imo, and their 100 macro is still my favorite lens.

 

[Derrel]

14-24mm will gar-an-tee that wide-angle, faraway, distant, boring look to ALL of your photos--unless you really,really,really understand how to EXPERTLY arrange near/mid/far compositions. An ultra-wide to wide-angle zoom like the 14-24 Nikkor is a tool for experts. Seriously. It is a fine,fine optic, but it is also large, heavy, and obnoxious.


Enjoy the trip! Shoot some shots with some visual variety! The 16-35 gives more visual variety....above 24mm is 28 and all the way up to 35mm. To me, in a travel zoom, I want focal length flexibility. So, for a trip like this, the VR for slow-speed, hand-held shooting at f/8 and f/11, and the added focal length range on the top end, the 16-35 would be the preferred lens of all three.

 

[I3igcircle]

Thank you for the replies, that was the train of thought I was thinking also with the 16-35, however I keep reading in the 17-35 posts how they could not do with out the 2.8 a, and how they won't regret getting it over the 16-35 or the newly announced 4.0 version.

It's not that money isn't an object but I only want to buy one lense and not have to try and sell/upgrade etc later. I agree and get the point about the 14-24, sharp or not it doesn't make sense for me. I have never had a Nikon until my D600 and never shot a VR type lense so don't know what it would do for me. I get what it does but not how I will benefit in real world hands on applications.

 

[john sherratt]

Go for the Tokina 11-16.

 

[TruckerDave]

If im not mistaken,The Tokina 11-16 is a DX lens and the OP is using a D600 (full frame) camera. Doesn't make any sense to take a step backwards.

 

[swiftparkour94]

I just bought a used Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC for $320 earlier today.

I don't have knowledge of Nikon's compatability but hopefully that lens fits your mount. Sells new for around $650. I recommend getting a used one so that you can test it out in person to assure that it is a good copy.