Got a Nikon? Share your thoughts and photos here or ask a question! (II)

[monk3y]

Originally Posted by dgrPhotos

Thanks. That 24-120 would never see the light of day if I had those other three.

I added the 85/1.4 earlier. I don't know if I should add the 14-24/2.8, 17-35/2.8, 16-35/4 or 24/1.4 on the wide side. This is where Canon made it easier for me with the 16-35/2.8 II.

14-24 - heavy and less useful zoom range.
17-35 - Older, not as sharp as the other lenses
16-35 - It's an f/4
24/1.4 - 1.4 makes up for not being a zoom but it's the most expensive of the bunch.

hahaha exactly why I did not mention it on my recommendation

do you shoot landscape much? the 16-35mm f/4 VR is pretty good if landscape is what you wanna do... very nice to have VR for low low light, just don't expect to get any bokeh out of it hehe

ok since you bought the 85mm f/1.4G already, now you only have $3500 on your budget? if you get the 70-200mm VRII for $2,400, you will be left with $1,100... enough to get yourself either a 16-35mm f/4 or uhhmmm 17-35mm.

I think the 17-35mm performs just like any of their pro grade lenses

[monk3y]

Originally Posted by KenjiS

The 17-35 f/2.8 really isnt a bad lens though...last i checked it was considered better than the Canon 16-35 series...

the "extreme corners" arguement BS is really a measurebation thing if you think about it... Do you really put anything you want to focus on in the absolute corners of your images? So long as the center circle is very sharp, the absolute edges of your frame can be soft (and in fact, probubly SHOULD be soft) because you're not sticking anything important over there...

Unless you're shooting a brick wall or something...

The 17-35 is sharper at f/4 than the 16-35 is... And its a bit smaller

My vote would be for a 17-35 f/2.8...

are you 100% sure about that? I know its stopped down at f/4 but I haven't seen claim that the 17-35mm is sharper... although what the heck, it should be only important to pixel peepers hahaha

[KenjiS]

Originally Posted by dgrPhotos

If I shot landscapes I might care about corner sharpness but I don't. The 17-35 and 24 are the two lenses in that group I haven't used. Have you heard anything about how fast the 17-35 focuses?

I'd say its not a slouch, its an AF-S lens and wides tend to not have issues focusing too slowly or anything

And even with landscapes, we're talking about wide open performance, Stopped down to f/8-f/16 which is where a lot of landscape folk do their work and it really doesnt matter anymore.....

[KenjiS]

Originally Posted by monk3y

are you 100% sure about that? I know its stopped down at f/4 but I haven't seen claim that the 17-35mm is sharper... although what the heck, it should be only important to pixel peepers hahaha

According to photozone.de yes, It is indeed a sharper lens at f/4 than the 16-35 at f/4...

17-35 on left, 16-35 on right, at f/4 and widest setting

Center: 4004 (As high as you can score) vs 3536 (Borderline Excellent)
Borders: 3047(Very Good) vs 2700 (Good)
Extremes(IE the VERY corners, like 1% of your frame!): 1983(fair) vs 1728 (Poor)

Basically the 17-35 works out to a school grade better... Wide open at f/2.8 we get scores of:

3919 (Excellent)
2476 (Good)
1475 (Poor)

I only think you'd see a difference if the lens goes up a "grade" So yeah, The 17-35 wide open is probubly just about as good as the 16-35 wide open, Except a stop quicker...

[dgrPhotos]

Originally Posted by monk3y

hahaha exactly why I did not mention it on my recommendation

do you shoot landscape much? the 16-35mm f/4 VR is pretty good if landscape is what you wanna do... very nice to have VR for low low light, just don't expect to get any bokeh out of it hehe

ok since you bought the 85mm f/1.4G already, now you only have $3500 on your budget? if you get the 70-200mm VRII for $2,400, you will be left with $1,100... enough to get yourself either a 16-35mm f/4 or uhhmmm 17-35mm.

I think the 17-35mm performs just like any of their pro grade lenses

The 16-35 f/4 appeals because of video and it's the cheapest of the bunch.

[KenjiS]

If video is a big part of your work then get the 16-35 and forget what i said

[monk3y]

Originally Posted by KenjiS

According to photozone.de yes, It is indeed a sharper lens at f/4 than the 16-35 at f/4...

17-35 on left, 16-35 on right, at f/4 and widest setting

Center: 4004 (As high as you can score) vs 3536 (Borderline Excellent)
Borders: 3047(Very Good) vs 2700 (Good)
Extremes(IE the VERY corners, like 1% of your frame!): 1983(fair) vs 1728 (Poor)

Basically the 17-35 works out to a school grade better... Wide open at f/2.8 we get scores of:

3919 (Excellent)
2476 (Good)
1475 (Poor)

I only think you'd see a difference if the lens goes up a "grade" So yeah, The 17-35 wide open is probubly just about as good as the 16-35 wide open, Except a stop quicker...

ok that's fair enough hehe... I thought Nano Coating is their secret, apparently they don't need Nano Coating to produce very sharp lenses

[monk3y]

Originally Posted by dgrPhotos

The 16-35 f/4 appeals because of video and it's the cheapest of the bunch.

Originally Posted by KenjiS

If video is a big part of your work then get the 16-35 and forget what i said

I know he has already tried it...

I would snatch back my 16-35mm f/4 (I sold it) if I could get it back right now.

[KenjiS]

Originally Posted by monk3y

ok that's fair enough hehe... I thought Nano Coating is their secret, apparently they don't need Nano Coating to produce very sharp lenses

Nano coating has more to do with controlling flare than it does with improving sharpness

But that said, More elements can be used to correct for aberrations introduced in the process of making a faster lens and make an overall sharper lens if you have better coatings to reduce the flare and ghosting created by adding additional elements....

[dgrPhotos]

Originally Posted by KenjiS

If video is a big part of your work then get the 16-35 and forget what i said

I wouldn't say it's a big part but I do use it.

[nicksan]

Hmm...latest 5D-whatever rumor is that it may have the 1D4 AF system. If this turns out to be true, well, then, you know the rest.

[dgrPhotos]

I assume that's a downgrade from the new 1Dx.

[monk3y]

Originally Posted by nicksan

Hmm...latest 5D-whatever rumor is that it may have the 1D4 AF system. If this turns out to be true, well, then, you know the rest.

Welcome back Nick

How many times have I said that?

[KenjiS]

Originally Posted by dgrPhotos

I assume that's a downgrade from the new 1Dx.

"downgrade" is relative

Not as good as the 1Dx's 61pt AF, but the 45pt system from the 1D4 isnt exactly a slouch...

[dgrPhotos]

Originally Posted by KenjiS

"downgrade" is relative

Not as good as the 1Dx's 61pt AF, but the 45pt system from the 1D4 isnt exactly a slouch...

How about compared to...

""enhanced" Multi-Cam 3500-FX AF system with 51 focus points 15 of the points are cross-type sensors 11 midpoints can operate at f/8"