| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Nikkor 16-35 f/4 VR
Greg Kendall-Ball, Photographer, Photo Editor
 |
Abilene | TX | USA | Posted: 12:18 PM on 02.09.10 |
->> I know it's just been released, and hasn't been out in the field much, but if a freelance photojournalist was about to switch to Nikon, and was trying to decide between the 17-35 2.8 and the 24-70 2.8, should this new lens be considered, too?
I like the extra width over the 24-70, and the f/4 shouldn't be a problem with the D700's low-light abilities.
What say ye? |
|
Andrew Nelles, Photographer
 |
Chicago | IL | usa | Posted: 12:36 PM on 02.09.10 |
| ->> Even with all the high-ISO advantages, I still see 2.8 as a necessity. Just my opinion. |
|
Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer
|
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 3:04 PM on 02.09.10 |
->> Either-or. For about the same price, you can get two different tools. F2.8 if you need it; or VR if that's more important. Of course, we'd all love to have a 12-500/f1.4 VR Macro, but...only so much you can ask one lens to do.
I really like the thought of the 16-35 VR as a walkaround lens...particularly at night. |
|
Nick Doan, Photographer, Assistant
|
Scottsdale | AZ | USA | Posted: 3:05 PM on 02.09.10 |
->> I use a 17-40/F4 for years when I shot Canon. I never missed not having the 16-35/F2.8
Now that I have switched to Nikon, I'd be even more likely to use this lens. The Depth of Field characteristics don't come into play as much with a one stop difference shooting at ultra wide angles in my opinion. The only question I would want answered is how the flare characteristics appear with this lens. With the Canon version is was almost always acceptable, and I was very happy using it.
So if you are asking about F4 ultra wide angle vs an F2.8 ultra wide angle, I'd say it was a go. If you are asking whether it's a factor in making a switch to Nikon, I would say it's a non-factor. If you are asking about specific characteristics about the lens, I don't have it yet. But, I hope to get it. |
|
Chris Parent, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Baton Rouge | LA | United States | Posted: 3:28 PM on 02.09.10 |
| ->> I would only but this if it had a sharp price difference. The Canon 17-40 markets for about 600 dollars, half of a 24-70. This 16-35 is almost as much as a 17-35 2.8. I love the 17-35 and use it almost as much as my 24-70. I would rather have the extra 2.8 over VR .Especially at that price. |
|
Yamil Sued, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Peoria | AZ | USA | Posted: 5:17 PM on 02.09.10 |
->> I'm going for it...
1- Lightweight
2- Uses a Filter
Sometimes I use these lenses in blowing sand and I rather replace a $75 Filter than a $400 Front Element!!!
This lens looks promising.
Y |
|
Brad Barr, Photographer
|
Port St. Lucie | FL | USA | Posted: 5:37 PM on 02.09.10 |
->> now that iso 10K+ is very very useable, i think this sort of lens has become much more pertinent than say 2yrs ago. It is surprisingly large though. The canon one is nice and compact compared to this: (or so it seems from the photos). I used the canon one for a couple years and it was a terrific lens. If this is as sharp as the 14-24 or 24-70....i could see it getting some use. Esp if you have the 24 1.4 in the bag to cover really low light use or shallow dof look
bb |
|
Nic Coury, Photographer
|
Monterey | CA | | Posted: 5:40 PM on 02.09.10 |
->> @Brad
That's why I'm interested too. I've always said if I shot Canon, I'd get a 17-40 and a 35 f/1.4 and that Nikon should make one of each.
I dunno if I like the VR though, seems to have raised the price a tad. |
|
Yamil Sued, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Peoria | AZ | USA | Posted: 6:28 PM on 02.09.10 |
->> I agree with you Nic,
I don't see the need and the expense of the VR on this lens. |
|
Jamie Sabau, Photographer
|
Pickerington | OH | US | Posted: 7:36 PM on 02.09.10 |
| ->> Clearly, it was made with video in mind. Perhaps more so than still. |
|
Chris Parent, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Baton Rouge | LA | United States | Posted: 8:48 PM on 02.09.10 |
->> Jamie,
That is something I hadn't thought. The VR is great for video, so that may make it a great lens for that. Though the great thing about that is DOF and this wouldn't have such a great DOF. |
|
Matthew Hinton, Photographer, Assistant
 |
New Orleans | LA | USA | Posted: 9:40 PM on 02.09.10 |
->> I posted this in the other thread
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=35372
This lens is intended for video.
It's Vibration Reduction and has a constant aperture unlike other VRs in this range. This allows manual exposure video shooting without having to adjust your exposure from f/3.5-5.6 as you change focal length with other variable aperture VR lenses. If you look at the VR line-up almost all except this one have a variable aperture.
But yes it's strange that it wasn't 2.8 but Canon seems to have a similar problem with IS, image stabilization, and is only offering a 24-105mm f4 IS in the full-frame 35mm range. Though they offer a 17-55mm IS for the EF-s 1.6x format.
It must be difficult to make a VR or IS lens with floating elements and still get below f/4 in the wide-angle range because the lens would have to big enough for an 2.8 aperture and float for the stabilization. I guess telephotos don't have the issue because the have a much smaller angle of view but the 70-200mm VR II is still a big heavy lens. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|