Go PRO or Go PRIME? (Lens questions)

[chamellieon]

Hi All,

I'm at the stage where I want a new wide angle lens. I've been shooting with Nikon's 18-35mm Lens for the last year and a bit, and while I love it, I just feel like I'm starting to miss out on the qualities of a prime, or a pro lens.

So here's my thought process:

Nikon 16-35mm f4 Nano coated... gold ring goodness... wow, $1500 is about the cheapest it comes, the 16 wide end really appeals, and since Ive been using the 18-35mm, I can see how this would be beneficial.

But then..

I'm also feeling a little tempted by the Nikon 24mm f2.8 - reports from around the internet suggest its a great little lens. Or even the 20mm 2.8 OR the Sigma 20mm 1.8....

I could say, save my $1500 and buy the 16-35mm
or save a bit more and get the 17-35mm 2.8...?

(im so confused when it comes to these, with 1mm being the $300 difference..)
or
I could spend equal to that on a couple of lenses... Ive got my eye on some sigma equivalents...

Can anyone woo me further in to the 16-35mm? Early reports seem to suggest its nikon's best wide angle.. but f4? what's that about?

[kiwi]

all you need to know

http://www.bythom.com/20lens.htm

[chamellieon]

So i take it Kiwi you'd endorse the 20mm 2.8 over the 16-35mm?

[Wayne]

The 16-35 is certainly not Nikkor's best wide angle lens. The 17-35 & 14-24 are both superior. The 16-35 can be had for US$1000 new, and the 17-35mm for about the same exc++ used, or a little more mint.

The 1mm difference between the 2 zooms is not here or there, and the extra stop of light isn't much different given the 16-35mm also has VR, and lets face it, most WA are used for landscapes on tripods, so on face value they are almost twins. The difference is in the glass quality with the 17-35mm being the staple Nikon pro WA for some years, and with it now being under valued somewhat by the arrival of the 16-35, it is an excellent buy.

One note for the 17-35 is that they squeak when auto-focusing, and almost every single one will do it unless it is brand new. They still AF properly and while many scaremongers will tell you it's going to shit the SWM (Silent wave motor) they usually plod along for many years without issue. Most will squeak only for the first few movements of the SWM when it has been sitting a while, then they go silent.

[kiwi]

So i take it Kiwi you'd endorse the 20mm 2.8 over the 16-35mm?

I have the former and not the latter. I cant comment on the w/a zooms

I find the 20mm wide enough on FX for my occassional landscapes and things like group shots, it's small, light and just fits in the camera bag so easily and is sharp as a tack

[I @ M]

Also worth considering after a few sample images have popped up on the net and can be had for a bargain price is the Tokina 16-28. If you click the bar under the sample images at that link the full resolution jpg downloads for you to pixel peep..

We have an order in for one when they hit Australia but they are in stock at B&H and Adorama now.

[chamellieon]

I already have the 35mm f2...
I seem to be more liking collecting primes, rather than bulky zooms..
the 14-24 is nice, but can't do filters on the front I'm told...which kind of rules out the ND400 that I was going to slap onto it for the bulk of my landscape shooting

[kiwi]

If you are at the meet Sunday you can have a play or borrow my 20 if you'd like

[chamellieon]

Also worth considering after a few sample images have popped up on the net and can be had for a bargain price is the Tokina 16-28. If you click the bar under the sample images at that link the full resolution jpg downloads for you to pixel peep..
.

On a D700?
Everything Tokina ive seen recently has all been for crop sensors

[chamellieon]

If you are at the meet Sunday you can have a play or borrow my 20 if you'd like

I'm going to try my hardest to get to the meet, though if its fine I won't be (working bee) ((stupid parents demanding my time))
but that'd be great for sure if I can make it

[I @ M]

On a D700?
Everything Tokina ive seen recently has all been for crop sensors

the sample images at that link are taken with a D3x, no doubts on that one being suited to FX bodies.

[chamellieon]

the sample images at that link are taken with a D3x, no doubts on that one being suited to FX bodies.

let me know how yours goes... however the lack of affixing filters to the front element is a major con for me - need to be able to attach filters!

[kiwi]

well, you dont need to attach filters, it might be esaier but sometimes not, from what I gather

[Wayne]

the 14-24 is nice, but can't do filters on the front I'm told...which kind of rules out the ND400 that I was going to slap onto it for the bulk of my landscape shooting

Yes you can, Lee make a good kit for it.

[vanngirl]

I have a 24mm/2.8 which I do love love love, but that doesn't stop me wanting the 17-35. I'm interested in architecture, real estate, interior type work and I think this will be a great lens for that. I've yet to try one though, so can only share your confusion. (although I did choose the 17-35 over the 16-35, which was a hard enough decision)

[ncbuxton]

For architecture think 24mm Tilt/ Shift. Doesn't do a bad job as a straight WA. Zoom: 14-24mm.

[lovecolt]

Personally, i would go with what some suggested 14-24, which is one of the Holy Trio from Nikon. Personally, i don't see much point of the 16-35 or 17-35 as they are neither too wide or too zoom to be of much use (aka jack of all trade)

[vanngirl]

I guess you don't know until you've used the lens for a while, if it suits your needs, or your style. that's the tricky part.

[chamellieon]

I do shoot mostly wide-angle for landscapes, but im worried about the distortion of 14mm and I do use up to 35mm quite often.
While the 14-24mm is a superb lens no doubt, my "serious hobbyist" budget simply cannot afford this level of grandeur... adding to the worry is the often rugged-styles of photo outings I go on, and having such a large bulbous front, that cannot be protected by a filter, is yet another issue for me, not to mention the cost of investing in Lee filters, when their production is so behind schedule anyway.

After a bit of a look, the 17-35 does woo me for its 2.8ness... its around about $200 difference depending on where Id buy.. $1600 from grey market in AUS and $1300 from grey market in HK.
With the new releases of FX lenses, all including Nano Crystal Coating, its hard not to fall for these...

[Wayne]

Just be aware, the 17-35 Nikkor doesn't have Nano Crystal Coat, the 24-70 does and the 16-35 does.