Best wide angle for D700

E

EYE_ON_ME

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,378
Name
Brendan
Edit My Images
No
Hi,
I'm really thinking of upgrading to the nikon D700, I have the nikon 24-70 and the tokina 11-16 but what could I get to replace the tokina? I really can't afford the 14-24 and all the filters etc. Wonder what other people have done when the got the D700 and shooting landscape?!

Thanks
 
I have done a ALOT of research on this and it comes down to 3 coices IMO

Nikon 14 - 24 Heavy - Awesome - Ultra Wide - 2.8 - No Filters - Expensive
Nikon 16 - 35 Not So heavy - Pretty Damn Good - VR - F4 - Reasonably Priced
Plastiky Build
Tokina 16 - 28 Quite Heavy - razor Sharp - No VR - 2.8 - Solid Build

My Bet is between the latter 2 - Not quite sure which yet, however the build on the 16-35 puts me off...................
 
The tokina 11-16 works fine on a D700/D3 at 16mm which may get you through the short term until a long term lens comes along.
 
14-24mm is worth every penny - just keep saving.
 
16-35. Got one today, very impressed so far. Build isnt that far off a 24-70, although the wieght difference is noticeable.

Havent had a chance to test properly yet as the weather was awful, but it seems very sharp all over from the few shots I did take.
 
14-24 all day long!
 
i've got a 16-35 and don't understand the criticism of the so called plasticky build that people kep levelling at it. Just because it's not built like the 14-24 does not mean that it is by default a poorly constructed lens. And besides, what are you going to do with it, fondle it all day or use it to take photos? ;)

I've been very happy with the images from it and the vr is surprisingly useful.
 
Everyone with the 14-24, do u have the filters you want?! And how much extra did it set you back?!
 
16-35 is in my bag and it does everything I want. Only thing is that I fancy a 24-70 to go with the 70-200 VRII but feel its too much of an overlap with the 16-35. Soooooo @ some point I may flog on the 16-35 and get the other two......but then again maybe not!!!!
 
Ive the the 24-70 aswell. Its not much on an overlap. Each lens has its own purpose. The 16-35 for landscapes, the 24-70 for everything else. I think its a pretty good combo and it doesnt hurt to have a little overlap, saves changing lenses when you need 27mm.
 
Dont temp me....must resist.......or should that be resistnace is futile? :lol:

And anyway, 27mm is covered with both of them!
 
Last edited:
Mouldy said:
Dont temp me....must resist.......or should that be resistnace is futile? :lol:

And anyway, 27mm is covered with both of them!
Click to expand...

doh.. It was early, no coffee etc.. You know what I mean though. :lol: If you had the 14-24, you'd have to change to the 24-70, with the 16-35, you dont have to, is what I was getting at.
 
Last edited:
One of the things that put me off the 14-24mm when I had Nikon was the £300+ Lee filter (SW150) that seemed to be subject to massive delays.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top