Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Nikon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Nikon Cameras
Thread started 05 Feb 2010 (Friday) 20:14
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

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

 
this thread is locked
monk3y
Totally Saturated
monk3y's Avatar
46,161 posts
Joined Aug 2009
Cloud and Honey
Feb 17, 2012 18:55 |  #4741

dgrPhotos wrote in post #13916998external link
Thanks. That 24-120 would never see the light of day if I had those other three. :lol:

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 :lol:

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 :D


www.monk3y.comexternal link | My GEAR

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
monk3y
Totally Saturated
monk3y's Avatar
46,161 posts
Joined Aug 2009
Cloud and Honey
Feb 17, 2012 18:58 |  #4742

KenjiS wrote in post #13917013external link
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


www.monk3y.comexternal link | My GEAR

LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
"Holy crap its long!"
KenjiS's Avatar
20,437 posts
Gallery: 49 photos
Joined Oct 2008
Buffalo, NY
Feb 17, 2012 18:59 |  #4743

dgrPhotos wrote in post #13917114external link
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.....


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 7D Mark II or EOS 6D
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
"Holy crap its long!"
KenjiS's Avatar
20,437 posts
Gallery: 49 photos
Joined Oct 2008
Buffalo, NY
Feb 17, 2012 19:04 |  #4744

monk3y wrote in post #13917133external link
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...


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 7D Mark II or EOS 6D
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
dgrPhotos
Cream of the Crop
dgrPhotos's Avatar
Joined Apr 2011
Illinois
Feb 17, 2012 19:05 |  #4745

monk3y wrote in post #13917122external link
hahaha exactly why I did not mention it on my recommendation :lol:

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 :D

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




LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
"Holy crap its long!"
KenjiS's Avatar
20,437 posts
Gallery: 49 photos
Joined Oct 2008
Buffalo, NY
Feb 17, 2012 19:07 |  #4746

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


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 7D Mark II or EOS 6D
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
monk3y
Totally Saturated
monk3y's Avatar
46,161 posts
Joined Aug 2009
Cloud and Honey
Feb 17, 2012 19:17 |  #4747

KenjiS wrote in post #13917156external link
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 :D


www.monk3y.comexternal link | My GEAR

LOG IN TO REPLY
monk3y
Totally Saturated
monk3y's Avatar
46,161 posts
Joined Aug 2009
Cloud and Honey
Feb 17, 2012 19:18 |  #4748

dgrPhotos wrote in post #13917160external link
The 16-35 f/4 appeals because of video and it's the cheapest of the bunch.

KenjiS wrote in post #13917169external link
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. :lol:


www.monk3y.comexternal link | My GEAR

LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
"Holy crap its long!"
KenjiS's Avatar
20,437 posts
Gallery: 49 photos
Joined Oct 2008
Buffalo, NY
Feb 17, 2012 19:20 |  #4749

monk3y wrote in post #13917194external link
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 :D

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....


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 7D Mark II or EOS 6D
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
dgrPhotos
Cream of the Crop
dgrPhotos's Avatar
Joined Apr 2011
Illinois
Feb 17, 2012 19:22 |  #4750

KenjiS wrote in post #13917169external link
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.




LOG IN TO REPLY
nicksan
Man I Like to Fart
nicksan's Avatar
24,618 posts
Joined Oct 2006
NYC
Feb 18, 2012 09:45 |  #4751

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. :lol:


NYC Wedding Photographerexternal link | Blogexternal link | facebookexternal link | Flickrexternal link | Gear

LOG IN TO REPLY
dgrPhotos
Cream of the Crop
dgrPhotos's Avatar
Joined Apr 2011
Illinois
Feb 18, 2012 09:55 |  #4752

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




LOG IN TO REPLY
monk3y
Totally Saturated
monk3y's Avatar
46,161 posts
Joined Aug 2009
Cloud and Honey
Feb 18, 2012 11:14 |  #4753

nicksan wrote in post #13919499external link
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. :lol:

Welcome back Nick :lol::lol::p

How many times have I said that? :lol:


www.monk3y.comexternal link | My GEAR

LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
"Holy crap its long!"
KenjiS's Avatar
20,437 posts
Gallery: 49 photos
Joined Oct 2008
Buffalo, NY
Feb 18, 2012 11:21 |  #4754

dgrPhotos wrote in post #13919532external link
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...


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 7D Mark II or EOS 6D
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
dgrPhotos
Cream of the Crop
dgrPhotos's Avatar
Joined Apr 2011
Illinois
Feb 18, 2012 11:29 |  #4755

KenjiS wrote in post #13919887external link
"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" :p




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

502,222 views & 0 likes for this thread
Got a Nikon? Share your thoughts and photos here or ask a question! (II)
FORUMS Nikon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Nikon Cameras


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00285 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.02s
Latest registered member is cehanis
810 guests, 597 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 5577, that happened on Mar 02, 2016