New d800, now a landscape lens [Archive] - AusPhotography:: Australia's Premier Photography Forum::

View Full Version : New d800, now a landscape lens

out n about

26-04-2013, 8:50am

Yippee after months of procrastination we have finally purchased a D800 :D , 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

26-04-2013, 9:07am

arthurking83

26-04-2013, 9:07am

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

26-04-2013, 9:09am

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

26-04-2013, 2:23pm

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/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=689&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=616&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=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 :lol:

- - - 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

26-04-2013, 11:22pm

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

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/image/125439034/original.jpg

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

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/image/125439036/original.jpg

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

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/image/126488176/original.jpg

Here is a corner crop:

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/image/126488177/original.jpg

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.

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/image/126694000/original.jpg

out n about

27-04-2013, 5:38pm

Lance B

27-04-2013, 5:41pm

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. :D 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

05-05-2013, 6:14pm

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

05-05-2013, 6:42pm

ian66

05-05-2013, 8:13pm

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

cupic

05-05-2013, 10:51pm

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

cheers

Lance B

06-05-2013, 12:28am

All these are Handheld :eek: 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

24-05-2013, 10:04pm

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

24-05-2013, 11:34pm

... VR certainly helps. :)

Agreed. VR is brilliant. It really works!

Kajo

30-05-2013, 3:53pm

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

30-05-2013, 5:58pm

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

31-05-2013, 12:55am

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

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/image/150330549/original.jpg

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

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/image/150388152/original.jpg

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

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/image/150403652/original.jpg

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

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/image/150463017/original.jpg

Kajo

31-05-2013, 10:50am

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

31-05-2013, 11:17am

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

[quote]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. :)

Kajo

31-05-2013, 12:05pm

Thanks a lot Lance B. I will keep that shop in mind for when I will need to get the filter system.

ScottJon

03-09-2013, 5:18pm

I've put an order in for a 16-35, very popular at the moment, just about everyone is out of stock!

Batesy

16-10-2013, 1:16am

oh love these shots.. hanging to get my D800 now.. !!.. coming just not yet. doh.

JonathanChoi

31-10-2013, 11:00pm

I can't really comment on the two lenses you have mentioned but I have tried the 14-24 f2.8 and it is amazing for landscape. But it is pretty much only good for landscape with its wide focal length range, so if you are just looking for a landscape lens, I think that is definitely a good choice!

torro

30-11-2013, 12:02pm

Have used the nikon 24-70 zoom extensively for landscape photography and am happy with the results. Just bought the 16-35 f4, took a few photos in backyard, very pleased with image quality and sharpness. Can't wait till I can get out in the bush to give the 16-35 a go.

NRandall

03-12-2013, 2:15pm

I read this with interest as I am using a D610 and have a similar quest, which probably is within the boundaries of the OP's question.
I need to be careful about my comments here as I am new to this particular forum, having just discovered it, but I do have a couple of questions regarding the potential usefulness of the 16-35VR.
I currently use an older 20-35 2.8, my second example of this which I have used since my film days, and which seems to have a singular advantage in lack of distortion, which is important to me, shooting structures etc. under moonlight.
You will all be familiar with other comments about this older lens so I won't list them here.
My first question is about the build quality of the 16-35 along side the 17-35 and perhaps the older 18mm prime. Shooting in beach conditions at night requires some robustness, others' reviews of the 16-35 have raised questions in this regard...
Also, the VR capacity on the 16-35 might be less useful for me as I shoot largely on a tripod and at night.
So robustness, clarity, and absence of distortion are important to me.
So for me its between the 17-35 and the 18mm prime [AF or AIS].

arthurking83

05-12-2013, 4:00pm

From what I remember of the 16-35VR .. build quality was very solid.
Have also had some time with 17-35 too, and while the 16-35 does feel a bit more plasticky in feel(only), it doesn't feel as though it's made of plastic.(ie. feels very solid, even compared to the 17-35)

I remember the 17-35 just feels heavier(most likely due to a larger heavier front element??? :confused013)

I suppose in some ways, robustness is also a measure of how long all the components will last too.
Both 17-35 and 16-35 use Nikon's SWM focusing mechanics, so they're both susceptible to failure in this respect. Then the 16-35 also has VR mechanisms to consider, and they also could fail too(but it's very unlikely)

While VR may be something you may never ever use, it's not fixed on .. so it should never be seen as some sort of disadvantage in any way. You don't want it, turn it off. BUT!! when you do want(need!) it, you turn it on.

VR is always an advantage.

While you may not see distortion at say 20mm on your 20-35, my guess is that there is almost certainly some.
Generally, most zoom lenses will have evened out distortion by about the midway point in the focal length range.

Without having compared the two lenses, my guess is that at 20mm, the 16-35 will have lower distortion figures than the 20-35 will(but of course this is just speculation for now).

as an example of what I mean, the Nikon 20mm f/2.8D has more than twice the distortion level(in terms of actual numbers) at it's fixed 20mm than the 16-35VR does(measured) at 21mm.
If Nikon can get less distortion with a modern wide angle zoom lens compared to an old prime wide lens, I suspect they'd have done a bit better than their old WA zoom lenses too.

NRandall

07-12-2013, 1:13am

Thank you for these details.
Just today I sold the 20-35 to begin funding the next wide. Now my widest is a 24mm AIS 2.8 which serves me really well for what I shoot, except for the wider frames. If I can match the quality of the 24 with something in the 18-20mm range I'll be very happy. . I just need to see how far the money will go, as I typically buy second hand.

arthurking83

07-12-2013, 8:41am

AhA!! ....

If you want wide .. a highly recommended lens to look into is the Sigma 12-24mm.

apart from the issue of filtration(which is important to me) .. it's still quite an exceptional lens for the money outlayed.

I don't have the 24/2.8, but have the 24/2 instead .... and if the Sigma is not better at 24mm, then it's about on par.

Sigma is also slow at f/4.5 - f/5.6 .. and if this doesn't bother you either(doesn't bother me) .. then this lens may work for you too.

It is insanely and addictively wide!

NRandall

07-12-2013, 9:20am

[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

My pleasure, and thank you for the nice comments. :)

Thank you for sharing these images and comments. I am in the market for a wide for my D610 and this seems to be just the thing. I had reservations about the plastic build, as I am a bit old-school in these matters and shoot outdoors in some pretty rash conditions, but given the images and price comparison with the older 17-35 its hard to ignore this.

- - - Updated - - -

AhA!! ....

If you want wide .. a highly recommended lens to look into is the Sigma 12-24mm.

apart from the issue of filtration(which is important to me) .. it's still quite an exceptional lens for the money outlayed.

I don't have the 24/2.8, but have the 24/2 instead .... and if the Sigma is not better at 24mm, then it's about on par.

Sigma is also slow at f/4.5 - f/5.6 .. and if this doesn't bother you either(doesn't bother me) .. then this lens may work for you too.

It is insanely and addictively wide!

Just when I thought I had it figured out another option appears!:)

arthurking83

07-12-2013, 9:50am

......

Just when I thought I had it figured out another option appears!:)

It depends on your definition of 'option'!

Option as in another wise angle lens type that fits your required focal length range?

Option as in cheap enough wide angle lens

.. etc.

The major problem with this lens, as per the other SWA lenses with large bulbous front elements .. fitting filters(if you use them, as I and many here seem to do).

Filtration then becomes an expensive accessory.

16-35 is still wide with the added benefit that any 77mm filter kit will mount to it easily .. and hence cheaper.

One bonus with the Siggy 12-24, is the lens cap assembly that comes with the lens.

The Nikon 14-24 comes with a slip on cup type lens cover .. the Sigma 12-24 comes with a two part cup+cap. So the parts are a ring type attachment that slips onto the lens, as per the Nikon lens, but with a lens cap(82mm) that forms the front seal.

At about 22-24mm, you can use filters(CPL, rectangular types and so forth).

NRandall

07-12-2013, 10:33am

It depends on your definition of 'option'!

Option as in another wise angle lens type that fits your required focal length range?

Option as in cheap enough wide angle lens

.. etc.

The major problem with this lens, as per the other SWA lenses with large bulbous front elements .. fitting filters(if you use them, as I and many here seem to do).

Filtration then becomes an expensive accessory.

16-35 is still wide with the added benefit that any 77mm filter kit will mount to it easily .. and hence cheaper.

One bonus with the Siggy 12-24, is the lens cap assembly that comes with the lens.

The Nikon 14-24 comes with a slip on cup type lens cover .. the Sigma 12-24 comes with a two part cup+cap. So the parts are a ring type attachment that slips onto the lens, as per the Nikon lens, but with a lens cap(82mm) that forms the front seal.

At about 22-24mm, you can use filters(CPL, rectangular types and so forth).

Sorry, I was being tongue in cheap . . .
Image quality is priority one, filtered by factors such as ergonomics [the 16-35 is pretty long], build quality and price; that is to spend as much as I can reasonably afford to achieve the best of the other factors.
I did discover the absence of a filter mount on the Sigma, and I just last week ordered a set of Cokin graduated ND filters, so the Nikon 16-35 and the 17-35 appear to be the two candidates, and it looks as though in reference to bang for buck the 16-24 wins.

NRandall

08-12-2013, 11:02pm

It depends on your definition of 'option'!

Option as in another wise angle lens type that fits your required focal length range?

Option as in cheap enough wide angle lens.

I found a good second hand copy of the 16-35mm today within my budget so the search is over for now.
Thank you for your help in making a 'wise' choice. :)