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

kdthomas · Dec 12, 2014

Been thinking about a wide zoom for my D810, and I'd like some input from folks who hopefully have experience

Torn between this lens ... Nikon SKU 2182, which is apparently very sharp
Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR Review

and this one ... Nikon SKU 1960, which seems to be better built, and almost juuust as sharp
Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8

Ulitmately, I want to wind up with two fast primes (which I have), a wide zoom, and a tele zoom (which is what I've read most working pros use most often, and that kind of makes sense to me)

Thoughts?

dearlybeloved · Dec 12, 2014

16-35 hands down. I've owned them both and the 17-35 is a squeaker. nothing to crazy, but it's annoying.

kdthomas · Dec 12, 2014

dearlybeloved said:
16-35 hands down. I've owned them both and the 17-35 is a squeaker. nothing to crazy, but it's annoying.

You mean it squeaked when focusing, new out of the box??? That can't be normal

JTPhotography · Dec 13, 2014

Great thread. You have brought up one of the biggest Nikon lens debates. I have recently been researching the same thing. the more you read the less clear it becomes. Unfortunately there is no clear answer. Just decide what is most important to you, make a list of pros and cons. Also, throw in the 14-24. I have read enough negative reviews of the 16-35 about distortion and soft corners that I avoid it. Ken Rockwell swears by the 16, photozone.de says the 17 is the best option. Optically, the 14-24 blows them away, but is a beast and filters are a pain. I use filters with mine but would ditch it if there were other options. If you plan on doing some astrophotography, the decision gets harder. F4 isn't enough on the 16, and the 17 isn't well regarded for star photos. The 14 is best here. I have the new 20 1.8 and it is good. It accepts 77mm filters too. A perfect option for me would be to have a second wide prime, like a 14 to 16 2.8 that would accept filters, then I would just use the two primes for my wide shooting. Third party options are nil. The Samyang 14 is good for the price but optically inferior. Nikon needs a non-VR 16-35 2.8 to match canon and the entire debate would end. Try them all if you can.

kdthomas · Dec 13, 2014

I like the (apparently, what I've read?) solid build of the 17-35, but this motor-squeaking business sounds scary. Maybe my expectations are too high, but it seems to me like a $1700 lens should be smooth, silent, never-fail perfection.

I think I'm leaning more toward the 16-35. $500 less expensive, I'm not going to be examining the corners in a microscope, and the distortion is apparently easily corrected in LR/PS.

sleist · Dec 13, 2014

The 16-35 is excellent (I own it). Unless you need f/2.8.

In good light or on a tripod - great. Low light/indoors - not so much. Don't count on the VR to save you.
I consider it an excellent landscape lens.

dearlybeloved · Dec 13, 2014

ive used about 3-4 different 17-35s and they are known for their squeak. it doesn't affect anything else, just the noise when focusing.

kdthomas · Dec 13, 2014

sleist said:
The 16-35 is excellent (I own it). Unless you need f/2.8.
In good light or on a tripod - great. Low light/indoors - not so much. Don't count on the VR to save you.
I consider it an excellent landscape lens.

The VR doesn't work well? I would like to use it indoors but not for sports or action shots. Events, weddings, family gatherings, people around a table etc

sleist · Dec 13, 2014

kdthomas said:
sleist said:

The 16-35 is excellent (I own it). Unless you need f/2.8.
In good light or on a tripod - great. Low light/indoors - not so much. Don't count on the VR to save you.
I consider it an excellent landscape lens.

Click to expand...

The VR doesn't work well? I would like to use it indoors but not for sports or action shots. Events, weddings, family gatherings, people around a table etc

If you are shooting events, then I think a 2.8 zoom would be a better option. And maybe a 24-70 rather than a wide angle.
The VR works fine on the camera side. People still move though.

But that's just my opinion.

colnago1331 · Dec 14, 2014

If you don't need to use filters take a look at the Tokina 16-28mm f2.8. It's as sharp as any Nikon lens and a ton less. My 17-35mm got squeaky so I traded it in for the Tokina and couldn't be happier.

ruifo · Dec 14, 2014

The best is the 14-24mm, no question. I almost got the 14-24mm myself, but in the end decided to go with the Nikkor AF-S 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED. Optically, it is second only to the 14-24mm (the 18-35 is measured to be optically better than both 16-35 and the 17-35), it's very sharp corner to corner while wide open, and way way way lighter than the 14-24mm, making the 18-35mm ideal for travel. The 18-35 also can take 77mm filters, while the 14-24mm needs a way more complex solution to take filters. The 18-35 costs 60% less than the 14-24mm too.

Here are my sample shots with the D810 and the Nikkor AF-S 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G IF-ED version:
- Nikon 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S - an album on Flickr
- Flickr: The *18-35mm G & D810, D800, D800E - Nikon Nikkor* Pool

The 16-35mm advantage is the VR function and the 16mm wide end (if you really need that), but the 18-35mm optics are measure better than the 16-35. The 17-35mm advantage is the f/2.8 aperture (if you really need that), but it's not as sharp as the 18-35mm. In my case, the 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 came about as the ideal solution to go with my D810.

kdthomas · Dec 15, 2014

I appreciate everyone's input. I seem to get the general feeling KR's advice makes sense, so I'll give it a try. He seems to think the 16-35 is a good option. I don't plan on interior wide-angle action shots at weddings and family gatherings, and if I need to get anything close to frozen, I'll use a higher ISO. I've seen his VR shots with 1/8 and 1/15 and they look mighty fine to me.

I like the ruggedness aspect of the 17-35 but it's $500 more and that business about the squeaking and the AFS motor and whatnot is just spooky. $1700 glass should come with absolute confidence.

So ... it seems like the 16-35 is a good middle ground.

Either way, Nikon makes good stuff, and I'm sure I'll get a fine product that'll do well for me. I'm confident I won't get shafted. If it doesn't work out, I'll sell the thing ... and go another way with a lesson learned. There's worse things in life that making the wrong purchase decision.

Thanks again for the input, it was very helpful

Tailgunner · Dec 16, 2014

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.

kdthomas · Dec 16, 2014

Tailgunner said:
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