Jump to content
wthurman

Nikkor 17-35/2.8 or 16-35/4?

Recommended Posts

I'm interested in one of these. I like the idea of the faster lens as it will be used topside as well as underwater and don't think I need the VR. Lens will be used on a D3x or D700 so the older style of the 2.8 is fine.

 

I realize the f4 lens is fairly new and I've seen some of the test shots done with it on a separate thread but would appreciate some feedback on the lenses- particularly the older one, which I am admittedly leaning towards- from users. It appears as if the 2.8 is being or has been discontinued but it's still available here and there. I haven't found much through the search option.

 

Anyway, thanks in advance!

 

Wendy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have both lenses and I don't think you can go wrong with either. I have done pool tests with the 16-35 but not actually used it in a shoot, I do plan to next week. My sense is that underwater this lens will definitely perform better without a diopter with better edge sharpness behind a dome than the the 17-35. If you add a 3-4 diopter to the 17-35 than the edge sharpness will probably be a wash, but then you lose some angle of view so for similar performance the 16-35 will be noticeably wider. Topside you'd probably have to pixel peep to tell a difference in sharpness. I think this lens will prove to be sharper and perform better under rigorous testing on digital cameras; remember the 17-35 is really a lens that was designed for film so issues like light divergence etc are probably better managed in the new lens, how important that is I don't know. I think the extra stop on the 17-35 is only of potential value topside, though not something you are likely to need much with the D3x or D700. I think the only advantage of the f2.8 is if you need more out of focus background effect with the 2.8 vs f4. As regards ability to shoot low light, the VR more than makes up for the extra stop.

The 16-35 lists less than the 17-35 though you can probably get a better deal on the 17-35 now. My verdict, if you can get a real good deal on a 17-35 go for it, otherwise buy the 16-35.

I think I will probably sell the 17-35 at some point, but I love that lens, so find it hard to let go just yet.

Edited by loftus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks! This is just the sort of information I was hoping for. I'll stay tuned for the results of your upcoming shoot.

 

Wendy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shot in the pool with the 16-35 yesterday; images at 16, 24, and 35 shown in this NWS post. The lens appears sharp behind my 8" Subal dome, edge to edge throughout the zoom range. I am particularly pleased with the lack of peripheral distortion compared to the 17-35 at the wide end of the zoom.

My trusted 17-35 is likely for sale.

 

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showt...t=0#entry250760

Edited by loftus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Loftus, with the Suball 8-inch dome, what exyension ring do you use with that lens?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Loftus, with the Suball 8-inch dome, what exyension ring do you use with that lens?

I have a 65 and 70mm extension; I think they are both good, but I think the 70mm which I used for the images shown is my preference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Wendy,

 

If you decide on the 17-35, I have the extension ring zoom gear for Sea&Sea MDX housing to let go if you are interested. Thx. KK

Edited by kkgodiving

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...