Wide Zoom 16-35 f/4 VR vs 17-35 f/2.8

[Tailgunner]

I would probably come more suggesting the 24-70mm 2.8 or equivalent. I have shot some events and I can tell you that 2.8 does come in handy. But I just can't see shooting an event exclusively with a wide angle.

Well, I hadn't really planned on using just a wide zoom, exactly. Right now I'm just building a glass arsenal ... I think I can get most things covered with a wide zoom, a tele zoom and simply move back & forth as I need to. I can also have a 50mm fast prime for low-light.

I might even get another FX body later on, maybe a D610 to have as a backup/second lens

Okay, well I think everyone needs a good wide angle. I crossed a similar bridge awhile back. I thought long and hard about the 17-35mm and the new 16-35mm. I ended up going with the 18-35mm instead. The 18-35mm actually had good review when compared to the 17-35mm & 16-35mm. I gave up the 2.8 but I really don't use it much, I still have my mid range w/2.8 if I need it. Now the 16-35mm on the other hand has some impressive reviews plus it has VR. I think I would take the 16-35mm over the dated 17-35mm.

 

[SnappingShark]

How did it turn out kdthomas? I've just picked it up for less than $1200 brand new and already absolutely love it!!
Not had a chance to fully test it out - but the weight, the handling and the instant focussing is amazing!

Tried it in store on a D4, and now have it shooting random things around the house on the D810 (I know, very ghetto of me).

But yeah, let us know how it worked out and link us to any shots you took with whatever decision you made!!

 

[kdthomas]

I am very very pleased with this lens ... I'll have to dig up some images I took in GA, but yes ... very sharp, very high quality ... I feel like it definitely was money well spent.

 

[Braineack]

Fuel to fire:

Tamron 15-30mm 2.8


Isn't the 18-55 VRII sharper than the 17-35? I can't imagine that pairing well on a D810.

 

[kdthomas]

Fuel to fire:

Tamron 15-30mm 2.8


Isn't the 18-55 VRII sharper than the 17-35? I can't imagine that pairing well on a D810.

I honestly can't speak to the Tamron lenses ... the 18-55 that I have is the DX kit lens for the D3200 (not VR) and I hardly ever touch it anymore except to have as a backup

 

[Braineack]

It's not that you could really use it on the D810, but just throwing that little tid-bit of comparison info in there is all.

 

[boomer]

The new Tamron looks pretty nice.

I am happy I went with the 16-35 f4G over the 17-35 f2.8 or 14-24 f2.8. Now that I have it paired with my new 20mm f1.8G, I feel I have the best of both worlds

 

[Braineack]

Remember it has VC as well and they are claiming it will beat the sharpness of any Nikon in the category.

although I wasn't impressed by the first test shots I've seen with it; They all looked soft to me.

First Photo Shoot with the Tamron 15-30 2.8 VC and D4s: Nikon FX SLR (DF, D1-D4, D600-D800) Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

 

[Coasty]

The 16-35 is not a tank, but then, it isn’t a plastic fantastic kit lenses either. It’s built plenty tough for 95% of users.

 

[Patrice Lanteigne]

As for 3rd party lenses in the wide zoom category the Tokina 16-28/2.8 FX is well regarded. No filters though.

 

[JTPhotography]

Had to dredge up this old debate after testing a new addition to the mix, Tamron 17-35 osd.

For the record I’ve owned all of the lenses in this debate. For pure image quality the Tamtin 15-30 is the winner, even over the 14-24. Due to filters and size (I’m downsizing for travel purposes) I’ve tried all the other alternatives and all were good but not having 2.8 was an issue for the 16-35 and 18-35, though both are great optically.

Back to the Tamton 17-35, I hate it. It feels cheap, the images are very soft in the corners and the distortion is really odd, not uniform and hard to fix. Sending it back.

The debate goes on.