Nikon FF super wide: Real World Experiences Sought

[jnet6]

That sounds interesting At the momment I am going over the lens data sheets for the dreaded angle of view vs $$ spend.

> I have tried both and Tokina 16-28 exceeds 16-35 in almost every way except lack of VR and 28-35 range and inability to take screw on filters.
VR is of no interest to me, in fact, I consider it to be a bokeh killer (you can't have your cake and eat it too).. so I never bought a lens with VR. Filters.. it would be nice to put on the protective UV, I have some filters from my medium format days.. so again not a big thing. But, do you have any examples to show with the Tokina? When you say "16-28 exceeds 16-35 in almost every way" I would imagine you are referring to corner sharpness (I assume center sharpness as a given), illumination??

> Tokina loses out slightly to the 14-24 if you do not talk about the wider wide end. Yes, 16-28 IQ is that good.
I was offered the 17-35mm for testing, if I could get my hands on the rest it would be good, if anyone is interesting in doing a comparison test between any of them feel free to drop a PM.... !!

-- marios

Hi there, maybe we can meet and test out a few wide angles to see if they are up the edge.
my AF-S 17-35 has been sitting in dry cab for long time... :sweat:
maybe few other primes.
i'll like to see how does it compare to Tokina 16-28 F2.8 n the nikkor AF-S 16-35 F4 VR.

 

[daredevil123]

That sounds interesting At the momment I am going over the lens data sheets for the dreaded angle of view vs $$ spend.

> I have tried both and Tokina 16-28 exceeds 16-35 in almost every way except lack of VR and 28-35 range and inability to take screw on filters.
VR is of no interest to me, in fact, I consider it to be a bokeh killer (you can't have your cake and eat it too).. so I never bought a lens with VR. Filters.. it would be nice to put on the protective UV, I have some filters from my medium format days.. so again not a big thing. But, do you have any examples to show with the Tokina? When you say "16-28 exceeds 16-35 in almost every way" I would imagine you are referring to corner sharpness (I assume center sharpness as a given), illumination??

> Tokina loses out slightly to the 14-24 if you do not talk about the wider wide end. Yes, 16-28 IQ is that good.
I was offered the 17-35mm for testing, if I could get my hands on the rest it would be good, if anyone is interesting in doing a comparison test between any of them feel free to drop a PM.... !!

-- marios

You can just read up some independent review sites online. Most are comparing the Tokina to the 14-24.

Summary: sharp even at 2.8. F4 is super sharp, on par or better than 16-35, and very excellent distortion control which the 16-35 is fares quite badly at 16mm. And most importantly, street price of Toki is 1.2+k compared to 16-35's price tag of 1.8k.

 

[bornwild4]

not the best example to give...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kidthafreak/5556007139/sizes/l/in/photostream/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kidthafreak/5518500799/sizes/l/in/photostream/
these were taken with the tokina 16-28...

honestly between the 16-35 and the 16-28, having own both i choose the tokina simply because, its 2.8 and i wish to pay the amount for an F4 lens and VR....

my noobish 2 cent... Hope u get what u seek... 14-24 is a way to go...

Nice COI bro.
My eyes always cannot capture the COI when trying to take a shots.
Always clueless

 

[marios_pittas]

Hi there, maybe we can meet and test out a few wide angles to see if they are up the edge.
my AF-S 17-35 has been sitting in dry cab for long time... :sweat:
maybe few other primes.
i'll like to see how does it compare to Tokina 16-28 F2.8 n the nikkor AF-S 16-35 F4 VR.

Sounds good jnet6. I can help with the 20-35 AF, 35mm f/2 AI, 24mm PC-E, and 28-70 AFS (if we decide to test how they perform on the 35mm and below) on FX (DX also possible but no very interested to be honest).. If anyone else wants to join.... I have previously tested the 15mm AI-S, but I need to be frank, my main interest here is not landscapes, its potraiture indoors..

An image that reflects what I will be using it for and for which testing would be good can be found here:
Page: (around the 3/8 from the top of the page) http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/16-35mm.htm
Pic: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/images1/16-35mm/examples/D3R_0188-600.jpg
See Enlargement (large file): http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/images1/16-35mm/examples/D3R_0188.JPG

For me, 16-35 looks like its best used with people in the centre +/- 1/3 left or right of the centre.

 

[jnet6]

Sounds good jnet6. I can help with the 20-35 AF, 35mm f/2 AI, 24mm PC-E, and 28-70 AFS (if we decide to test how they perform on the 35mm and below) on FX (DX also possible but no very interested to be honest).. If anyone else wants to join.... I have previously tested the 15mm AI-S, but I need to be frank, my main interest here is not landscapes, its potraiture indoors..

An image that reflects what I will be using it for and for which testing would be good can be found here:
Page: (around the 3/8 from the top of the page) http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/16-35mm.htm
Pic: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/images1/16-35mm/examples/D3R_0188-600.jpg
See Enlargement (large file): http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/images1/16-35mm/examples/D3R_0188.JPG

For me, 16-35 looks like its best used with people in the centre +/- 1/3 left or right of the centre.

Let's discuss over PM on what are we going to test out and when.
marios_pittas can u take the lead?

 

[marios_pittas]

Sure.. anyone interested in a test session for wides / super wides just PM me. DX / FX, lenses that we have so far failed to mention: 18-35mm 14mm the works.. pm..

-- marios

 

[daredevil123]

Sounds good jnet6. I can help with the 20-35 AF, 35mm f/2 AI, 24mm PC-E, and 28-70 AFS (if we decide to test how they perform on the 35mm and below) on FX (DX also possible but no very interested to be honest).. If anyone else wants to join.... I have previously tested the 15mm AI-S, but I need to be frank, my main interest here is not landscapes, its potraiture indoors..

An image that reflects what I will be using it for and for which testing would be good can be found here:
Page: (around the 3/8 from the top of the page) http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/16-35mm.htm
Pic: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/images1/16-35mm/examples/D3R_0188-600.jpg
See Enlargement (large file): http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/images1/16-35mm/examples/D3R_0188.JPG

For me, 16-35 looks like its best used with people in the centre +/- 1/3 left or right of the centre.

Portrait from 16-28/2.8 shot wide open @ 16mm by Akerue... subject was very close to the lens...

becareful when opening the pic. You might get a shock.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5254/5514873311_171d9dd949_b.jpg

 

[marios_pittas]

> Portrait from 16-28/2.8 shot wide open @ 16mm by Akerue... subject was very close to the lens...

That was my exact words to my wife as soon as I saw the photo Possibly a meter or 2 more and it would have been fine {thus my comment in one of the earlier posts: "since I am shooting around the 4m mark" }

 

[daredevil123]

> Portrait from 16-28/2.8 shot wide open @ 16mm by Akerue... subject was very close to the lens...

That was my exact words to my wife as soon as I saw the photo Possibly a meter or 2 more and it would have been fine {thus my comment in one of the earlier posts: "since I am shooting around the 4m mark" }

well we were fooling around at the coffee shop... and suddenly that lens is shoved in my face... I did that oooo... and he hit the shutter... oh well...

 

[Dfive]

Currently shooting FF with the 20-35mm f/2.8 (buddied with the 28-70 and 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S + some manual lenses here and there). For environmental portraits within closed smallish environments (at times) I would like a wider view, BUT not a distorted one - seeing faces distorted is a no-no for what I do!

- The 14-24mm looks interesting but also monstrous (I am concerned that people would be intimidated by the size and the front element - its huge!!!).

- Then its the 18-35mm vs 17-35mm vs 14mm vs 16-35mm

Has anyone faced the same dilemma (for environmental portraits, avoid distortion as much as possible):

* add a lens to the 20-35mm? or just replace it?
* add or replace with which of the above lenses (or some other lens that I have not considered)?

I have already read bythom's, rockwell's and bjørn's reviews (for what its worth). Any thoughts from people working in the same area, who may have face the same dilemma whether to add or to replace? Any pictures to demonstrate why one and not the other?

-- marios

See what I use below..... I love them and USE them all

The 17-35.... well It's the toughest lens this side of a Manual Nikkor !!!

 

[giantcanopy]

See what I use below..... I love them and USE them all

The 17-35.... well It's the toughest lens this side of a Manual Nikkor !!!

Don't get it. Issin't your 17-35 an autofocusing lens?

 

[Dfive]

Don't get it. Issin't your 17-35 an autofocusing lens?

Manual Nikkor = all metal front to beck, inside and out.... bomb proof ( 17-35 yes AF but has unreal construction !!! )

 

[sf_kang]

I m using the nikon 14-24 w D3/D700. Good range, extreme good IQ, very low or no distortion. Only issue is the size n weight of the lens. Still, i m willing to lug this around simply because the pictures i get are worth the effort.

 

[daredevil123]

Manual Nikkor = all metal front to beck, inside and out.... bomb proof ( 17-35 yes AF but has unreal construction !!! )

Well, you know what they say about tough fortresses... it will falter from the inside. ;P

A friend of mine had the SWM in the 17-35 breaking down on him twice. Still an awesome lens. Just have to have to be mentally prepared.

 

[GReddyZC76]

Well, you know what they say about tough fortresses... it will falter from the inside. ;P

A friend of mine had the SWM in the 17-35 breaking down on him twice. Still an awesome lens. Just have to have to be mentally prepared.

Hmmm... Same friend? My friend recently replaced his 17 35 motor.... 600+++:::i++ iirc..

Make me think thrice to get this len.... Esp 2nd hand lens...

 

[Ben Ang]

i have the 17-35 2.8, but have stopped using it now cos its just too big. i've settled for a 24 2.8 pre ai instead which is stunning. i still keep the 17-35 for events though and it never fails. wrt to distortion though, its important how you position your subjects in a scene. you need to make sure everyone is in the same plane so you don't get the 'wide angle effect' distorting their faces. if you take care of that i feel you can shoot at 17mm without much issue. thats what wedding photographers do for the pre wedding shots.