User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  1
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Nikon 16-35mm(Landscape Lens)

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    16 Jul 2010
    Location
    townsville
    Posts
    69
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Smile Nikon 16-35mm(Landscape Lens)

    Hello
    Im in the process of buying a new lens for landscape pics (Wow isn't this a stressful job)..
    Ok my original thoughts were the Nikon 14-24mm. I think its easily said that this is an awesome lens, BUT a heck of a lot of money.
    So after doing a lot more researching think I've come to the conclusion that the 16-35mm f4 will suffice as my go to landscape lens for an upcoming trip to Nepal.
    If anybody has any thoughts or even may be using this lens, would love to hear what you think.
    Thanks in advance
    Brad
    NikonD80, NikonD700, Nikon18-70, Nikon70-200 2.8, NikonSB-900,Nikon af-s 50mm f1.4g

  2. #2
    Still in the Circle of Confusion Cage's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 May 2010
    Location
    Hunter Valley
    Posts
    5,351
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Or you could look at the Samyang 14mm f2.8.

    Great for landscapes and astro with very good edge sharpness, not so good for architectural with it's distortion.

    I have one and am very pleased with it, used within it's limitations.
    Cheers
    Kev

    D600 : D7200 and too much stuff to list

  3. #3
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    16 Jul 2010
    Location
    townsville
    Posts
    69
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks Kev,
    Ill check it out

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    18 Aug 2012
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    271
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I've got the Nikon 16 - 35mm and can highly recommend it, Its wide enough for landscape yet also takes 100mm filters where as the 14 - 24 and possibly the samyang 14mm 2.8 (someone should confirm this) take 150mm filters (Lee SW150) which are more expensive and less variety available.

    At the end of the day it depends how important using ND filters is to your work, for me it is a must therefore i went with the 16 - 35 and was able to spend the extra money on more 100mm filters rather than less 150mm filters.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]


    D750 : Nikkor VR 16 - 35 f/4 G : Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 G
    HiTech Filters : Sirui T-2204X Tripod


  5. #5
    Ausphotography Regular
    Join Date
    27 May 2009
    Location
    Northern Beaches - Sydney
    Posts
    774
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have this lens, and use it on my D810. It is my favourite lens!

    It takes 77mm filters, the same as my 24-120 (and the same as my previous Tokina 12-24DX).
    David

    Nikon D810
    Nikkor AF-S 24-120VR, Nikkor AF-S 16-35VR, Nikkor AF-S 70-300VR, Nikkor AF 50 f1.8
    Tamron 90mm Macro

  6. #6
    Ausphotography Regular MissionMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    28 Feb 2012
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,824
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    What about the new Tamron?
    Fuji XT-2, Fuji X-E3, Fuji X100T, Fuji VPB-XT2, Fujinon 16-55 f/2.8, Fujinon 50-140 f/2.8, Fujinon 35 f2, Fujinon 90 f/2, Fujinon 60 f/2.4 Macro, Yongnuo YN560 IV, Yongnuo YN560 TX, Benro C3580T, Mefoto Q00
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/atholhill
    http://www.theoverratedphotographer.com
    https://www.instagram.com/theoverratedphotographer/


  7. #7
    Ausphotography Regular J.davis's Avatar
    Join Date
    17 Dec 2008
    Location
    Willowbank
    Posts
    1,154
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Tokina 16-28 F2.8 seems ok, OK enough that I bought one.
    Regards
    John
    Nikon D750, Sigma 105mm OS Macro, Tokina 16-28 F2.8, Sigma 24-105 Art, Sigma 150-600C,
    Benro Tripod and Monopod with Arca plates

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    11 Apr 2013
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    219
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If you're not worried about filters go the Tamron 15-30. Every review I've seen says that it smokes the 14-24 and 16-35 in terms of sharpness and edge sharpness. It's also the same price as the 16-35. I'm in a similar boat and I've ruled out the 14-24 completely and am deciding between the Tamron 15-30 and Nikon 16-35.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I'm Sam.

    D810, Sigma 50mm f/1.4, Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8, Nikon 16-35 f/4, Nikon 80-200 f/2.8. Sirui W-2204 Tripod w/ K-20x ballhead. Heliopan and Hoya filters.

    My photos: Instagram | 500px | Flickr

  9. #9
    Still in the Circle of Confusion Cage's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 May 2010
    Location
    Hunter Valley
    Posts
    5,351
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yep, if I was in this market I'd be having a real hard look at the Tamron.

    Tamron have really upped their game the last couple of years. I have both the 24-70 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8 and they are all that I hoped for, and more.

  10. #10
    Ausphotography Regular glennb's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Jan 2013
    Location
    Geelong
    Posts
    538
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The Tammy 15-30 does get good reviews and probably a good choice but if your into landscapes you probably use filters and with that reason is why I would go the Nikon 16-35 f4 and don't forget about the weight of the lens too. I got the 18-35 Nikon which has excellent sharpness not far off the 16-35 but the 18-35 has no VR but is very light. I do most of my landscape on tripod so suits me. But if I had the money I would of gone the 16-35.
    Cheers Glenn https://www.facebook.com/glennbirchphotography/
    D610&D5100
    Tamron 24-70f2.8 & 70-200f2.8 , Sigma 105f2.8 macro & TC1.4
    Nikon 50f1.8, 18-35G, 28f1.8, DX35f1.8, DX55-300f3.5-5.6, SB700, SB910, Bowens GM400 Strobes



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •