Which am i supposed to choose for my new D800 , 16-35 4f Vr or 17-35 2.8f . plz

[Kewei]

Turning to FX, i think my previous DX 12-24 len is ready to sell. And i need to make decision between 16-35 4f vr with 17-35 2.8f . These two lens are pretty different and difficult to determine.Also the cheaper one 18-35 is also taken into cinsideration. plz help

 

[toontca]

Turning to FX, i think my previous DX 12-24 len is ready to sell. And i need to make decision between 16-35 4f vr with 17-35 2.8f . These two lens are pretty different and difficult to determine.Also the cheaper one 18-35 is also taken into cinsideration. plz help

14-24mm 2.8f hands down

 

[sleist]

Turning to FX, i think my previous DX 12-24 len is ready to sell. And i need to make decision between 16-35 4f vr with 17-35 2.8f . These two lens are pretty different and difficult to determine.Also the cheaper one 18-35 is also taken into cinsideration. plz help

14-24mm 2.8f hands down

The 14-24 is a great lens, but the OP was using a 12-24 on a DX body which means they are used to an 18-36mm angle of view. The 14-24 may rob the OP of their most used range if they shoot from 24-36mm often. If this is the case, the 16-35 f/4 or the 17-35 f/2.8 would be better choices. Then it's a choice as to whether f/2.8 is a requirement or not.

 

[Derrel]

I'd prefer the 17-35, but that's just me. A 16-35 VR is almost certainly going to be MUCH newer, and with far fewer "miles" on its AF-S motor. Still...I'd just prefer that a lens of that FL range offer an f/2.8 max aperture. OTOH, the 16-35 VR is known for high central shaprness, AND it has VR, so if you like to shoot hand-held at slow speeds in poor lighting, such as let's say, on travel assignments and the like, then the VR lens would CLEARLY be advantageous. Same for shooting "one-handed" or in the wind, or aboard boats,and so on .... Nikon's VR lenses are worth their weight in gold when one needs to shoot a STEADY image while out of breath, breathing hard, or when it's windy, or the boat is moving,and so on. I often shoot photos aboard moving sport fishing or crabbing boats, and a STABILIZER-equipped lens is a big,big asset over a non-stabilized lens, in my experience. ESPECIALLY if the lens moves into the telephoto range, such as say the 80-400 tele-zoom range.

 

[Kewei]

Yee, u are right. I am just finding some Fx lens for substituding my wide angle abround 17+-1 and 35 , because these range are basically what i used for the landscape even for some anthropogeographic shot. But question is, whether it is necessary to have some strong depth of field for a wide angle? In wide open stituation, the pecentage of in-foucs aera could be smaller than the larger range's, consequently, the whole pitcure migt seem blurry except of little peaces of stuffs.

 

[Kewei]

I'd prefer the 17-35, but that's just me. A 16-35 VR is almost certainly going to be MUCH newer, and with far fewer "miles" on its AF-S motor. Still...I'd just prefer that a lens of that FL range offer an f/2.8 max aperture. OTOH, the 16-35 VR is known for high central shaprness, AND it has VR, so if you like to shoot hand-held at slow speeds in poor lighting, such as let's say, on travel assignments and the like, then the VR lens would CLEARLY be advantageous. Same for shooting "one-handed" or in the wind, or aboard boats,and so on .... Nikon's VR lenses are worth their weight in gold when one needs to shoot a STEADY image while out of breath, breathing hard, or when it's windy, or the boat is moving,and so on. I often shoot photos aboard moving sport fishing or crabbing boats, and a STABILIZER-equipped lens is a big,big asset over a non-stabilized lens, in my experience. ESPECIALLY if the lens moves into the telephoto range, such as say the 80-400 tele-zoom range.

Thx,same question,is that really necessary for an wide angle to have a strong depth of filed ?