Nikkor 16-35mm or 17-35mm?

Boyd22

TPF Noob!
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Location
Perth, Western Australia
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
I have a D700 body and want a new wide angle lens, which would you buy and why?
Thanks in advance for helping me make this decision.
Boyd
 
I think it really depends on if you need f/2.8 or not. If yes, then get the 17-35mm f/2.8. If no, then get the 16-35mm f/4. I don't use either - I shoot DX at the moment and use the 17-55 f/2.8 DX.
As a general comment, if either lens was longer than 35mm, then I would certainly go for the f/2.8 over f/4 without VR. The wider the lens, the more I stop down - but that's just me. If you shoot in dim lit areas with no option for flash, f/4 might not be fast enough. Then again, the D700's high ISO performance might make that a moot point.

Your budget, subject matter, and lens availability (and when you need it) will tell you more than I can.
 
17-35. It's cheaper, and is probably the best WA FX lens made by Nikon in all aspects (besides maybe focal range). I've read some reviews that say the 17-35 is better in terms of sharpness, contrast, and distortion over the 16-35.

Also, I just scored a deal for one ($700!). It's on the way to me as we speak.

Mark
 
Thanks Guys,
I'm thinking the 17-35mm is the go, (wish I could get one for $700)
 
Me too. Searched the whole US and got it shipped from Pheonix to Baltimore. :p

Mark
 
17-35 ........ is probably the best WA FX lens made by Nikon in all aspects .........

Mark

Some would argue strongly in favour of the Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8.

Also, I just scored a deal for one ($700!). It's on the way to me as we speak.

Mark

That is a good score for a very nice lens.
 
17-35 ........ is probably the best WA FX lens made by Nikon in all aspects .........

Mark

Some would argue strongly in favour of the Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8.

.

Agreed. But, I'd call that an UWA. I suppose I should have distinguished for the sake of argument.

Mark
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top