Nikon wide-angle zooms

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 8670
  • Start date Start date
D

Deleted member 8670

Guest
I shot with a D300 for 5 years, and I went full-frame in March with a D800, which is working well for me, so far. It's nice to actually be getting rid of a few lenses, as 3 were DX, and I hate having to choose which lenses to take out. :lol:

My DX 12-24mm is no good for FX, as it vignettes badly until 18mm, leaving very little useful range. Fortunately, my 24-70mm now covers a lot more, but still not quite enough. So, I'm looking for a new wide angle zoom lens.

I really liked the range the 12-24mm covered in DX, so I naturally looked at the 16-35mm f/4 first. But it's not cheap, even second hand, and it looks unnecessarily big and heavy, and VR?!? Still, that gold stripe and nano coating appeals to the gear snob in me. However, none of the big shops ever seem to stock one, and this seems to be keeping the price high.

Enter the new 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G. The few reviews I have read suggest that it's a bit of a young upstart, being optically as good as the 17-35mm/2.8 and the 16-35mm/4, if not better, for a fraction of the price (which will also hopefully fall over the next few months) and weight. I'd like to see a DXOmark test on this lens, and there's one due in June.

No doubt, there are pitfalls too. Cheaper build, crappy bokeh (although not usually an issue in UWA), waterproofing, glare problems, etc. But, I don't know if any of these things are significant, or if I'm even bothered for the amount of use it would get.

Has anyone used either of these lenses and can offer any advice or opinion on the subject?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The 16-35 is a genuinely great lens. Its not heavy, or that big, smaller and lighter than a 24-70.

The VR is also very useful. I could just walk around at any time of day and take landscapes without the hassle of a tripod.
Sad I had to sell mine, if I ever can, I'll be buying another.
 
TCR4x4 said:
The 16-35 is a genuinely great lens. Its not heavy, or that big, smaller and lighter than a 24-70.
Click to expand...

Saying it's smaller and lighter than the 24-70mm isn't saying much! :lol: That lens is a BEAST. (and yes, I know there are bigger/heavier, but I carry my gear on long hikes) :nuts:
 
True, it balances very well on a d700 though, and really doesn't feel heavy.. Not to me anyway.

Anything lighter feels unbalanced and I find it more uncomfortable to carry. I replaced mine with a Cosina 19-35 which is so light, you can't tell its mounted on the body and its nowhere near as nice to carry around.
 
TCR4x4 said:
True, it balances very well on a d700 though, and really doesn't feel heavy.. Not to me anyway.

Anything lighter feels unbalanced and I find it more uncomfortable to carry. I replaced mine with a Cosina 19-35 which is so light, you can't tell its mounted on the body and its nowhere near as nice to carry around.
Click to expand...

Yeah, being heavy, the 24-70 does make your shots steady. I just wish the lens hood was a bit lighter.

Do you miss the 3mm at the wide end? That's obviously one of the disadvantages of the 18-35mm, although, when I ditched the Sigma 10-20mm for the Nikon 12-24, I didn't miss the whacky 2mm at the wide end at all.
 
I have both the 14-24 and the old 18-35. I use the 18-35 much more (it's lighter and the range suits me better). It's also surprisingly good - I've had to check the exif to confirm I'd used the cheapo lens and not the expensive one a time or two. From what little I've read of the new version it's an improvement, so I'd say it's worth checking out if you can.

Disclaimer - I am not a pixel peeper so YMMV.
 
No I don't really miss the extra 3mm. There are very few occasions where stepping back a step can't achieve similar results. It would nice to have it, but its not the end of the world.
 
I use the 16-35 on my D700. It obviously isn't lightweight, but I think the balance is quite good & don't find it too heavy to carry around all day. (I use the optech sling)

I'd really like to try it out on a D800.
 
OldCarlos said:
It obviously isn't lightweight, but I think the balance is quite good & don't find it too heavy to carry around all day. (I use the optech sling)
Click to expand...
I bought an op-tech sling at Focus this year. It seemed really good, but I got annoyed with the fact that it kept covering up the monitor.
 
Actually, wanting a 16-35mm might be an academic exercise anyway, as no one seems to have them in stock anywhere.
 
Several for sale on here too if you don't mind second hand.


Edit.. Well there was...one has sold and the others have vanished!
 
Last edited:
I got mine from Calumet quite a few months ago. I think they only had 2 in at the time & don't think they have since. They do seem to be in short supply atm.

re the Op-tech sling, I know what you mean about it, it does get in the way sometimes. What you can do is, swap the uni-loops round on the camera so that it hangs down from the other side. (not quite as natural to grip, initially though)
 
The trouble with the second-hand 16-35s is that they are still expensive, and you don't get any warranty. So there isn't much incentive to buy. I like to think I'd still get a full 2 years' warranty when I spend that much cash.
 
I had the older 18-35 and that was a very good lens. Felt a little cheap but it produced great results.

For a long time now I have used the 17-35. This is a fantastic lens. Solid build quality and very sharp/great optics. So much better around F4-5.6 and F13-16. than the 18-35.
Also the weather proofing on the 17-35 is amazing. (Well it is on mine) It was recently submerged by a huge rogue wave and still works perfectly.
 
Yeah, I had the old 18-35 too, it was good, especially for the money and it was sharp enough for my needs but the main problem was that it had odd and difficult to correct distortion. Don't think it would fare too well on a D800 though.

The 16-35 has distortion too (lots at 16mm!) but that is easy to correct should the image require it.
 
Yammer said:
Saying it's smaller and lighter than the 24-70mm isn't saying much! :lol: That lens is a BEAST. (and yes, I know there are bigger/heavier, but I carry my gear on long hikes) :nuts:
Click to expand...

MAN UP!

I take a Lowpro rucksack with 300 2.8, 70-200 2.8, 28-70 2.8 and the 17-35, plus a couple of SB800s and te TX1.4 with 2x F5 bodies and a load of film. Hiking? 12 miles in and 12 miles back out again at Blackmount through the Corrie Ba......Lamdseer country. The F5s have been replaced with D3 x2 but it wasn't an issue. Just keep on plodding!
 
Lensflare said:
MAN UP!

I take a Lowpro rucksack with 300 2.8, 70-200 2.8, 28-70 2.8 and the 17-35, plus a couple of SB800s and te TX1.4 with 2x F5 bodies and a load of film. Hiking? 12 miles in and 12 miles back out again at Blackmount through the Corrie Ba......Lamdseer country. The F5s have been replaced with D3 x2 but it wasn't an issue. Just keep on plodding!
Click to expand...

How much does that lot weigh? Is your neck as wide as your head?
 
Yammer said:
Enter the new 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G. The few reviews I have read suggest that it's a bit of a young upstart, being optically as good as the 17-35mm/2.8 and the 16-35mm/4, if not better, for a fraction of the price (which will also hopefully fall over the next few months) and weight. I'd like to see a DXOmark test on this lens, and there's one due in June.
Click to expand...

This is not what I'm seeing, looking at WEX the 18-35mm is £670 while the 16-35mm is £830, saving £160 for 2mm less wideangle, no VR and lesser build doesn't seem like that great a deal to me, especially if you already have the 24-70mm covering a lot of the range meaning your losing about a 1/3rd of the extra range you'd get from the 16-35mm.

It depends on your shooting style I spose but personally I'd found the VR on the 16-35mm very useful, its limated my need to carry a tripod in a lot of situations. It does mean that theres less of an overlap with the 24-70mm aswell since you'll have the 24-35mm range at F/2.8 in one lens and with VR on another.
 
Moreorless said:
This is not what I'm seeing, looking at WEX the 18-35mm is £670 while the 16-35mm is £830, saving £160 for 2mm less wideangle, no VR and lesser build doesn't seem like that great a deal to me
Click to expand...

It's gone up a lot in the last week or two. It was as low as £529. £300 less than the mythical 16-35mm.

I agree that the extra couple of mm gives the 16-35mm an advantage, but I'd be interested to know how usable that extra 2mm is in reality. When I shot with a Sigma 10-20mm on a D300, I found that the 10-12mm range was virtually useless, and I much preferred having the 16-24mm overlap with my 16-85mm with the Nikon 12-24mm.
 
Yammer said:
It's gone up a lot in the last week or two. It was as low as £529. £300 less than the mythical 16-35mm.

I agree that the extra couple of mm gives the 16-35mm an advantage, but I'd be interested to know how usable that extra 2mm is in reality. When I shot with a Sigma 10-20mm on a D300, I found that the 10-12mm range was virtually useless, and I much preferred having the 16-24mm overlap with my 16-85mm with the Nikon 12-24mm.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing the difference between UK and non UK stock(so no warranty or I'd guess ability to have Nikon UK service it), generally I'd say that Nikon's pro lenses tend to be more or less the same here as elsewhere, the consumer level ones though seem quiet a bit more expensive.

Depends on your shooting style I spose with the extra width, I find I use it a lot. To me though the 18-35mm seems more like Nikon charging a premium for a lens they knew many wanted, ala the 70-200mm F/4.
 
Yammer said:
The £529 prices were 2 or 3 UK stock shops like Mathers on Camera Price Buster. I'm a little surprised the price has gone up. It's usually the other way a few months after a release, ending up about 25% less than SRP.

http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod.php?n=NikonAF-S18-35mmf3.5-4.5GEDLens&p=4380
Click to expand...

Good price if you can get it although being so much lower than everyone else I would ask about where the stock is from.

If you don't really want to go THAT much wider one other alternative to me seems like it could be a 20mm prime, most obviously the Nikon 20mm 2.8 or the Voigtlander 20mm 3.5. You'd be saving a bit more and get a much smaller lens than even the 18-35mm.
 
I doubt I'd use a prime much at that focal length. I really want a 2x zoom with a decent overlap with my 24-70.
 
Yammer said:
How much does that lot weigh? Is your neck as wide as your head?
Click to expand...

About 35 kgs all up - with lunch and a flask! You need broad shoulders, not a wide head! Lighten up.:D Oh, that is what you were trying to do with your kit!:lol: I forgot the tripod! That was a bind, damn thing wobbling about all over the place. I jsut like to keep reasonably fit and don't see carrying a couple oflenses in a rucksack a problem.
 
The 17-35 is what I have for the extra width. I toyed with the idea of getting the 16-35, but in actual fact the old 2.8 is a very, good lens and more than a match, despite not having the modern nano coatings. I then have the 16,, 2.8 for whacky shots and with RAW you can straighten it and use it as if it were a rectilinear lens.

If you have the 24-70, what are you really after the extra width for...as in,when would you be going that route? If only occassionally, then the idea of a prime wide is a very good one. I am sure you would fins the 24 is suitable for 85% or more of the situations.
 
Lensflare said:
The 17-35 is what I have for the extra width. I toyed with the idea of getting the 16-35, but in actual fact the old 2.8 is a very, good lens and more than a match, despite not having the modern nano coatings. .
Click to expand...

Actually, that's another good point of the 16-35 (and probably the 14-20 I guess) - I find it virtually impossible to get it to flare and even then contrast doesn't seem to go down, you just get the ghosts.
 
I like to travel light. I'm also about as un-sporty as they come.

I carry the 24-70, a 70-300 or 300 f4, and 50 1.4 since getting the D800. I used to carry a 12-24 f4 with my D300. It all goes in a relatively slim Tamrac Velocity sling bag, which I can get inside without taking off. I don't normally carry a tripod, but take one if I know I'll need it in advance.

I loved the 12-24 because I could leave it on for a while. I don't want to be changing lenses any more than necessary. That's why I don't want a prime, and why I'm not lusting after a 14-24, which seems a bit of an expensive and slightly pointless luxury to me.
 
Nawty said:
Actually, that's another good point of the 16-35 (and probably the 14-20 I guess) - I find it virtually impossible to get it to flare and even then contrast doesn't seem to go down, you just get the ghosts.
Click to expand...

I borrowed a 14-24mm from work and it bends light! It seemed quite flare prone to me if the light source was anywhere near frame. Stunning lens though, and again quite heavy. I ended up buying the Tokina version (16-28mm f2.8) from on here as I simply couldn't afford the 14-24mm, so far have been very pleased with it. It seems less flare prone than the Nikkor but again it doesn't take filters and is quite heavy so not sure of that is an option for Keith or not.
 
PaulButler said:
It seems less flare prone than the Nikkor but again it doesn't take filters and is quite heavy so not sure of that is an option for Keith or not.
Click to expand...

1. It's too expensive (as is the 17-35mm) for the use it would get.
2. It's to heavy
3. It's too wide at the long end

I want something that will overlap with my standard zoom. 35mm is ideal. Theoretically, if I want to travel very light, I can leave the 24-70mm at home, and just use the 50mm 1.4, and the 70-300mm for telephoto. Then I don't have to man-up at all.
 
Yammer said:
1. It's too expensive (as is the 17-35mm) for the use it would get.
2. It's to heavy
3. It's too wide at the long end

I want something that will overlap with my standard zoom. 35mm is ideal. Theoretically, if I want to travel very light, I can leave the 24-70mm at home, and just use the 50mm 1.4, and the 70-300mm for telephoto. Then I don't have to man-up at all.
Click to expand...

hehe, I figured that may be the case at least as far as the weight and range go :)
 
Yammer said:
I like to travel light. I'm also about as un-sporty as they come.

I carry the 24-70, a 70-300 or 300 f4, and 50 1.4 since getting the D800. I used to carry a 12-24 f4 with my D300. It all goes in a relatively slim Tamrac Velocity sling bag, which I can get inside without taking off. I don't normally carry a tripod, but take one if I know I'll need it in advance.
Click to expand...

Dare I say, you're carrying too much kit as it is.

For me the perfect setup for most situations on FF is:

16-35mm
50mm
70-300mm VR

And if I were traipsing over hills in search of landscapes then I'd leave the 50mm at home.

There really isn't a need to carry a mid-range zoom unless you're at a wedding or function.
 
Nawty said:
Dare I say, you're carrying too much kit as it is.

For me the perfect setup for most situations on FF is:

16-35mm
50mm
70-300mm VR
Click to expand...

That's why I said, "Theoretically, if I want to travel very light, I can leave the 24-70mm at home, and just use the 50mm 1.4, and the 70-300mm for telephoto." ;)
 
TCR4x4 said:
Nice, before you mount it, check that the stop screw is fitted on the end of the mount, or you will be in for a world of pain![/url]
Click to expand...

Oh. Many thanks for the warning, Tom.

What am I looking for specifically?

N1635-1.jpg

N1635-2.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top