New d800, now a landscape lens

[out n about]

Yippee after months of procrastination we have finally purchased a D800 , now we start all over again in search of a landscape lens. We are thinking that around the 17 -35mm focal length would suit us and have read reviews on the 16 - 35 F4 and 17 -35 F2.8. both are supposedly excellent lenses, great sharpness, good colour rendition etc. We like the 16 -35 F4 as it is a few 100 dollars cheaper but it supposedly has a bad barrel distortion problem at the 16 -19 mm end wide open. we would really appreciate some feedback from any users of either of these lenses or any suggestions of other options, thanks

[Sifor]

I can't provide any specific advice as I have not used either lens, however a quick google seems to suggest the 16-35 f4 is generally better than the 17-35 2.8.

Have a play with this if you want some direct sharpness comparisons: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=0&APIComp=2

I'd also love to hear what members who own either lens think..I may end up grabbing one for landscape instead of relying on my 24-70..

[arthurking83]

Same problem here

..... We like the 16 -35 F4 as it is a few 100 dollars cheaper but it supposedly has a bad barrel distortion problem at the 16 -19 mm end wide open. we would really appreciate some feedback from any users of either of these lenses or any suggestions of other options, thanks

if the use is primarily landscaping the distortion is going to go largely unnoticed on your images. You will only really see them because of your preconceptions about the lens.

At the moment, my choices are down to Nikon's 18-35/3.4-4.5: 16-35/4 and 17-35/2.8 in that order of preference ... but at the moment the 18-35 seems to me to be too expensive(for what it really is).

Why my choice didn't automatically go to the 16-35 is that the corners of this lens at 16mm seem to be too soft. and don't really get any better until f/11! The VR would be very handy to have as an option too(for non landscape usage).

17-35 can be a great all round lens and the f/2.8 can be useful in some situations too.

Tokina has a 17-35/4 for Fx too, and this is also another option I think(if price is reasonable compared to the Nikon 18-35.

I'm just waiting for a bit longer to see more reviews on the 18-35 Nikon. I'm not fussed about the variable aperture as in most instances it's not usually a problem, but I used to have the older AF-D version of this lens and never found it to be great in any way. So I'm going to wait until I see more reviews for it.

At the moment I'm just using my Dx lenses for landscape work on my D800 and happy about how they're working for me.

[ricktas]

I have the 17-35 f2.8 and it was my go-to lens for landscapes till I got the Sigma 12-24. However the Siggy has a bulbous front element and thus my Z-Pro filter system is useless on it. The 17-35 is a great lens, most of my landscapes over the past 2-3 years are taken with it, just not some of the more recent ones. Like all wideys' there are some perpective and distortion issues, but I just consider that in my framing composition at the time and adjust it in PP. The 17-35 can have lens flare issues if the sun is in the image, and sometimes this is not obvious through the viewfinder. It also has some small chromatic aberration issues at times as well. Other than these, which you can work to limit, the lens is great, lovely and wide for FF and very sharp. If you use filters, get the 17-35. If not then the Siggy 12-24 (though its 4.5-5.6) is a super bit of kit for well under $1k.

[out n about]

I can't provide any specific advice as I have not used either lens, however a quick google seems to suggest the 16-35 f4 is generally better than the 17-35 2.8.

Have a play with this if you want some direct sharpness comparisons: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=0&APIComp=2

I'd also love to hear what members who own either lens think..I may end up grabbing one for landscape instead of relying on my 24-70..

Hi Troy thanks for the reply and the link to the lens comparison site, have checked ti out and will bookmark it, we thought about the 24 - 70 as well as it is a bit more of an all round lens and has excellent reviews, the more u look the harder it is to make up your mind

- - - Updated - - -

Same problem here




if the use is primarily landscaping the distortion is going to go largely unnoticed on your images. You will only really see them because of your preconceptions about the lens.

At the moment, my choices are down to Nikon's 18-35/3.4-4.5: 16-35/4 and 17-35/2.8 in that order of preference ... but at the moment the 18-35 seems to me to be too expensive(for what it really is).

Why my choice didn't automatically go to the 16-35 is that the corners of this lens at 16mm seem to be too soft. and don't really get any better until f/11! The VR would be very handy to have as an option too(for non landscape usage).

17-35 can be a great all round lens and the f/2.8 can be useful in some situations too.

Tokina has a 17-35/4 for Fx too, and this is also another option I think(if price is reasonable compared to the Nikon 18-35.

I'm just waiting for a bit longer to see more reviews on the 18-35 Nikon. I'm not fussed about the variable aperture as in most instances it's not usually a problem, but I used to have the older AF-D version of this lens and never found it to be great in any way. So I'm going to wait until I see more reviews for it.

At the moment I'm just using my Dx lenses for landscape work on my D800 and happy about how they're working for me.

Thanks AK we will check out the Tokina 17 - 35 f4 and like you will will use our 18 - 200 in the meantime even though it seems a bit of a waste. It is really difficult to know what to believe and what not to when reading reviews and blogs about lens even dp review has 1 lens reviewed and not the other or not the one your looking for, so will keep looking thanks

- - - Updated - - -

I have the 17-35 f2.8 and it was my go-to lens for landscapes till I got the Sigma 12-24. However the Siggy has a bulbous front element and thus my Z-Pro filter system is useless on it. The 17-35 is a great lens, most of my landscapes over the past 2-3 years are taken with it, just not some of the more recent ones. Like all wideys' there are some perpective and distortion issues, but I just consider that in my framing composition at the time and adjust it in PP. The 17-35 can have lens flare issues if the sun is in the image, and sometimes this is not obvious through the viewfinder. It also has some small chromatic aberration issues at times as well. Other than these, which you can work to limit, the lens is great, lovely and wide for FF and very sharp. If you use filters, get the 17-35. If not then the Siggy 12-24 (though its 4.5-5.6) is a super bit of kit for well under $1k.

Thanks Rick we have read about the edge to edge sharpness and performance of the 12 -24 lens but the lack of being able to use filters is against it. After looking at the landscape / seascape images on the site and the methods and filters they use we would like explore the possibilities. Thanks

[Lance B]

I have the Nikon 16-35 f4 VR and also the Nikon 14-24 f2.8. Even though the 14-24 is supposed to be the wide angle lens to have, I actually prefer the 16-35 f4 VR. It is a sharp lens, lighter, has VR and even though there is distortion at 16mm, it is easily rectified in post process, many programs do this automatically.

I find VR very handy and I use the 16-35 as my travel wide angle lens for this reason.

Here is a shot taken at 1/3rd second handheld:
Nikon D700 ,AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR
1/3s f/8.0 at 28.0mm iso1600



This one at 1/5sec handheld.
Nikon D700 ,AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR
1/5s f/7.1 at 18.0mm iso1600



Pretty much every super wide angle lens is a tad soft in the corners wide open and they all really need to be stopped down to f8 or more for them to have decent sharpness, the 16-35 f4 VR and the 17-35 f2.8 basically being very similar, but the 14-24 being quite a bit better in this regard. Here is a sample of corner sharpness from the 16-35 f4 VR and also the fact that it is easy to correct distortion. It has been shot facing the lens down a little, so there are diverging walls and you can see that the floor tiles are straight. This shot is 16mm, f13, 1/10sec ISO3200 handheld.

Nikon D700 ,AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR
1/10s f/13.0 at 16.0mm iso3200 handheld



Here is a corner crop:



Here's another, distortion corrected satisfactorily:

Nikon D700 ,AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR
1/3s f/11.0 at 16.0mm iso2500 handheld.

[out n about]

Thanks Lance, we appreciate your in depth analysis and your images, your handheld shots at 1/3 and 1/5 sec are unbelievably sharp, we were pretty keen on the 16 - 35f4 and your post has reassured us that it is indeed the one we will purchase, now we will do some price checking and proceed. Thanks again

[Lance B]

Thanks Lance, we appreciate your in depth analysis and your images, your handheld shots at 1/3 and 1/5 sec are unbelievably sharp, we were pretty keen on the 16 - 35f4 and your post has reassured us that it is indeed the one we will purchase, now we will do some price checking and proceed. Thanks again

You're most welcome. I just think it is an overall well balanced lens and has many very good features. Good luck with your purchase.

[ian66]

My thanks also Lance, I have been using a 24 -120 with my D800E, and have been very pleased with the results - but have been undecided on where to go for more wide angle, I was leaning towards the 16-35 and now I am convinced it has all the features that I need, now to check out the market place.

[Lance B]

My thanks also Lance, I have been using a 24 -120 with my D800E, and have been very pleased with the results - but have been undecided on where to go for more wide angle, I was leaning towards the 16-35 and now I am convinced it has all the features that I need, now to check out the market place.

No problems, Ian. I am glad that I was able to assist.

Do you like your 24-120?

[ian66]

yes, I love the 24-120 - its become my walk around lens and In my humble view its very under rated.

[cupic]

All these are Handheld Lance do you drink coffee...seriously you have hands like the Rock of Gibraltar TFS

cheers

[Lance B]

All these are Handheld Lance do you drink coffee...seriously you have hands like the Rock of Gibraltar TFS

cheers

Thank you for your nice comment, Cupic. VR certainly helps.

[Burnman]

Hi all - to put a vote in for the 17-35mm lens, I have one and find its a great all round lens. It can be a tad soft on the 800e under close scrutiny, but I find its a good range to work with. Works brilliantly on my other Nikons.

The 14-24 is sensational, if you need it wide, then there is no real comparison. Its heavier, cannot take take filters easily, but incredibly sharp.

The fisheye (16mm nikon) by comparison has complex distortion (that is easilly fixed with a press of a button in lightroom) but can be soft at pixel level. A great fun lens though!

That said, my favorite wide angle would be my 18mm prime. Its a good compromise, wider than a 20, not as much distortion as the 14, and is so light I leave it on my camera 80% of the time. I can throw the camera and lens right in peoples faces (literally) without having to look through the camera and produce great shots.

Everyone has their personal preferences

[Transformer]

... VR certainly helps.

Agreed. VR is brilliant. It really works!

[Kajo]

About to get a D800 too and having the same problem... I'm leaning towards the 14-24 but it's just sooo expensive. Also it doesn't take filters which is a deal breaker for me...

[hakka]

About to get a D800 too and having the same problem... I'm leaning towards the 14-24 but it's just sooo expensive. Also it doesn't take filters which is a deal breaker for me...

It does take filters, but they cost a bit more than other lenses. I have the lee sw150 kit on mine, with lee nd and gnd filters, hitech 10 stop and cavision cpl.

There are also sytems available from hitech/lucroit and wonderpana.

[Lance B]

About to get a D800 too and having the same problem... I'm leaning towards the 14-24 but it's just sooo expensive. Also it doesn't take filters which is a deal breaker for me...

There is no doubting the credentials of the 14-24, but I really very rarely use mine, preferring my 16-35 and for some reason, it really shines on the D800/E. Between 19/20mm and 28/29mm, the 16-35 really is as good as any lens including primes.

D800E + 16-35 f4 VR @ 24mm & f9



D800E + 16-35 f4 VR @ 24mm & f9



D800E + 16-35 f4 VR @ 16mm & f9



D800E + 16-35 f4 VR @ 16mm & f11

[Kajo]

Thanks for that Hakka. Yes I actually heard of the sw150 kit for this lens. It does not produce any vignetting? Also where did you buy it from?
Cheers

- - - Updated - - -

There is no doubting the credentials of the 14-24, but I really very rarely use mine, preferring my 16-35 and for some reason, it really shines on the D800/E. Between 19/20mm and 28/29mm, the 16-35 really is as good as any lens including primes.

thanks so much for showing us those shots. Very impressive indeed. The 16-35 would also be my 2nd contender as I understand it is the 2nd widest in Nikon's FF lineup of lenses.

[Lance B]

[QUOTE=Kajo;1149688]Thanks for that Hakka. Yes I actually heard of the sw150 kit for this lens. It does not produce any vignetting? Also where did you buy it from?
Cheers

- - - Updated - - -

I got mine from direct Mediavision Australia, whom I think are the importers for Lee. I went to the Sydney store in Gladesville. I also obtained the Lee filters and holder for the 16-35 f4 VR from there as well as the SW150 for the 14-24.

http://www.mediavision.com.au/ContactUs.aspx

thanks so much for showing us those shots. Very impressive indeed. The 16-35 would also be my 2nd contender as I understand it is the 2nd widest in Nikon's FF lineup of lenses.

My pleasure, and thank you for the nice comments.