Wide Angle for FX


Apr 9, 2006
313
0
0
Singapore, Singapore
#1
Hello all, I am using a D3s. I'm looking for a wide angle for casual events (going out with friends, etc) and travel shots.

I have the 24-70mm but use it mainly for professional events. I'm stuck between the Nikon 18-35mm F3.5-4.5 and the Nikon 16-35mm F4.

I was told that the former is very lightweight and is great for travel but there has been alot of buzz about the nano coating and the fixed aperture on the latter.

Would like to know what you guys recommend?
 

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,662
69
48
lil red dot
#2
I am using the 16-35 for a number of years now... traveled with it to many places. Shot landscapes, weddings, events, culture, and environmental portraits. One of my most used lenses. Some may complain about the distortion. Actually it can be easily fixed with a single keystroke, and the distortion actually helps to reduce wide angle distortion for human subjects.

As for weight, how much weight do you really save? The difference is only around 280g. And for that you lose 2mm on the wide end which is very very significant. If you really want to save weight for casual travel, maybe consider a 2nd system. Many of us have gone mirrorless for times when we want to cut down on weight.
 

Last edited:

ortega

Moderator
Staff member
Nov 2, 2004
23,694
10
38
Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
#3
I have used both, for casual events the 18-35 is smaller and lighter
basic difference is size, weight and 2mm wider

if weight and size is not considered, then would you need the extra 2mm
 

SmOcKxY

New Member
Aug 16, 2010
236
0
0
#4
I'm sure daredevil has had more success with the 16-35mm..for me I had it for a few months..my opinion is that I would use it more for landscape or holiday use rather than working events..above f5.6 the lens perform admirably..but I've tried using it shooting gatherings..big group shot at f4..the sides are really very soft..so those at the end of the frame are really distorted and soft..of cos distortion can fix but softness I dunno how to correct in PP..most prolly I'm not good enough to get the best out if the lens

It definitely is a good lens and more general purpose than the 14-24mm and better build than the 18-35mm..but for me personally..I went back to primes and got the 20mm f1.8g
 

Last edited:
Apr 9, 2006
313
0
0
Singapore, Singapore
#5
Hello smockxy, how's your experience with the prime? Is there a significant difference in picture quality as compared to the 18-35mm?
 

SmOcKxY

New Member
Aug 16, 2010
236
0
0
#6
Hello smockxy, how's your experience with the prime? Is there a significant difference in picture quality as compared to the 18-35mm?
For me I've always felt that primes produces a tad sharper photos as compared to zooms..i say this with abit of disclaimer because I don't pixel peep and my untrain eye seriously can't tell much of a difference..

However shooting with the 16-35 and 24-70 wide open..the sides and corners can really be a little soft..distortion I can handle but not softness..it only really get's better like f5.6..as for primes..yes wide open can also produce a little softness and vignetting but stop it down to f2.8 it's solid from corner to corner..even for the 20mm..so that's why I went back to my primes..20mm 35mm 50mm and 85mm..all f1.8g

That being said..i'm not a photographer by trade and although I'm confident enough to shoot my friend's wedding and some events..i'm in no way qualified to say which lens is better for what..this is from my own opinions and what I felt about the resulting images from using the lens on a D750
 

Last edited:

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,662
69
48
lil red dot
#7
I'm sure daredevil has had more success with the 16-35mm..for me I had it for a few months..my opinion is that I would use it more for landscape or holiday use rather than working events..above f5.6 the lens perform admirably..but I've tried using it shooting gatherings..big group shot at f4..the sides are really very soft..so those at the end of the frame are really distorted and soft..of cos distortion can fix but softness I dunno how to correct in PP..most prolly I'm not good enough to get the best out if the lens

It definitely is a good lens and more general purpose than the 14-24mm and better build than the 18-35mm..but for me personally..I went back to primes and got the 20mm f1.8g
I think for focal lenghts as wide as 16mm, you can shoot much closer to your bigger groups, but you really have to watch your depth of field. For big groups for 16-35 I very seldom shoot at F4, and I will leave enough room on the sides. You have to watch it with UWA when shooting human subjects. It comes back to the basics of photography.
 

SmOcKxY

New Member
Aug 16, 2010
236
0
0
#8
I think for focal lenghts as wide as 16mm, you can shoot much closer to your bigger groups, but you really have to watch your depth of field. For big groups for 16-35 I very seldom shoot at F4, and I will leave enough room on the sides. You have to watch it with UWA when shooting human subjects. It comes back to the basics of photography.

Of cos as much as possible for group shots I go at least f5.6..but sometimes no choice cos lack of light..and sometimes lack of space thats why use UWA to shoot groups..but then again yeah..maybe I'm just not comfortable using that wide to shoot ppl..the widest I'd use is my 35mm now..

That's why I say the 16-35 is a very good and capable lens..in the right hands I'm sure the photos will be amazing..guess I'm not up to it or rather I never took the time to get comfortable with it..the 4 months I owned it I used it 3 times..hee!
 

lenslust

New Member
Apr 22, 2012
1,211
2
0
#9
18-35 gen1 was a beauty despite the distortion. Borrowed the 16-35 f/4 from Nikon before, I find the detail resolution on my D4 terrible, the colors and contrast also doesn't live up to the WA that Nikon has ever created.

That said, I still prefer the 17-35 f/2.8 Nikkor among the WA.
 

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,662
69
48
lil red dot
#10
18-35 gen1 was a beauty despite the distortion. Borrowed the 16-35 f/4 from Nikon before, I find the detail resolution on my D4 terrible, the colors and contrast also doesn't live up to the WA that Nikon has ever created.

That said, I still prefer the 17-35 f/2.8 Nikkor among the WA.
I use the 1635 on the D4 and I find it resolves very well, and give very good contrast and and colors. A good friend of mine also uses the same combo and he gets similar results as well. Could it be an issue with that specific copy you tried?
 

Dfive

Senior Member
Nov 20, 2008
3,141
10
38
Singapore lah....
#11
D3S is not demanding on most lenses... its no Megapixel-Zilla as such any wide from nikon seems to work ok.

14-24 / 16-35 / 17-35 and the 18-35's even.

Many pano landscape photographers say the 16-35 nikon is actually ok..... you don't use it a f/4 for that anyways.

Otherwise the new 20mm or even the new Sigma 24mm or my fav the nikon 24mm F/1.4 are nice WA.
 

Last edited:

Dfive

Senior Member
Nov 20, 2008
3,141
10
38
Singapore lah....
#12
For me I've always felt that primes produces a tad sharper photos as compared to zooms..i say this with abit of disclaimer because I don't pixel peep and my untrain eye seriously can't tell much of a difference..

However shooting with the 16-35 and 24-70 wide open..the sides and corners can really be a little soft..distortion I can handle but not softness..it only really get's better like f5.6..as for primes..yes wide open can also produce a little softness and vignetting but stop it down to f2.8 it's solid from corner to corner..even for the 20mm..so that's why I went back to my primes..20mm 35mm 50mm and 85mm..all f1.8g

That being said..i'm not a photographer by trade and although I'm confident enough to shoot my friend's wedding and some events..i'm in no way qualified to say which lens is better for what..this is from my own opinions and what I felt about the resulting images from using the lens on a D750
Nikons 24-70 is utter rubbish... owned it n sold it.

Frankly - Its ONLY good in the 30/32-70mm range.

Yes - Many Primes ARE better overall... I ditched most zooms because of that.
 

Last edited:
Oct 27, 2009
308
1
18
Drop Weight Like Sin City
#13
I used to own the Nikon 18-35 af-d version which is the 1st generation of this lens. Which is also my 1st wide angle fx lens ever bought. Budget, light and compact good for travel and other general usage. However distortion is bad if u intend to shoot in groups of people. If shooting purely landscape subjects, it works just as fine. Unless you are really picky at the corners. At f/3.5 - the corners are soft but after f/5.6 and up the softness is gone. If you are being skeptical between 18-35 & 16-35, u can try hunting at b&s section for the 18-35 af-d, ever since Nikon has updated it to the af-s, people are selling less than 500 bucks for 2nd hand if you intend to try out. If you are lucky even 300 bucks will be able to get which is a good deal. If use not happy can sell off without any loss.
 

Apr 9, 2006
313
0
0
Singapore, Singapore
#14
Hello friends thanks for your output. Went to SLR revolution a few days ago and went to try the 18-35mm g version. I think the build quality is fairly decent. Definitely not a premium lens nevertheless. I think I have sort of decided on the new 20mm f1.8g. I'm okay to sacrifice abit on the convenience over image quality.

But unfortunately it seems like every shop said there's no stock for the 20mm lens.
 

alfie

Senior Member
Aug 13, 2004
1,170
12
38
#15
Hello friends thanks for your output. Went to SLR revolution a few days ago and went to try the 18-35mm g version. I think the build quality is fairly decent. Definitely not a premium lens nevertheless. I think I have sort of decided on the new 20mm f1.8g. I'm okay to sacrifice abit on the convenience over image quality.

But unfortunately it seems like every shop said there's no stock for the 20mm lens.
Been that way for awhile. Even the 18-35g is quite rare. Not sure why Nikon's been so backordered for so many good lens. :(
Best way is to leave your name at the shop and hope they get a piece and contact you.
 

SmOcKxY

New Member
Aug 16, 2010
236
0
0
#16
Hello friends thanks for your output. Went to SLR revolution a few days ago and went to try the 18-35mm g version. I think the build quality is fairly decent. Definitely not a premium lens nevertheless. I think I have sort of decided on the new 20mm f1.8g. I'm okay to sacrifice abit on the convenience over image quality. But unfortunately it seems like every shop said there's no stock for the 20mm lens.
You will definitely be happy with the new 20mm f1.8G..I have it for some time and even sold the well-liked 28mm f1.8G after I got it..

My friend just got a copy 2 days ago at a very good price..and he was telling me Click! and MS Color have stocks for it..you may wanna check them out
 

Bart Tan

New Member
Apr 4, 2014
292
3
0
bl
#18
Saw from the DXO mark, in term of sharpness, 18-35G is shaper than 16-35.But I believe u can't see much diff in real life.


Btw how abt some 3party Len like tokina 16-28, 17-35 or tamron 15-30vc ?
 

alfie

Senior Member
Aug 13, 2004
1,170
12
38
#19
Saw from the DXO mark, in term of sharpness, 18-35G is shaper than 16-35.But I believe u can't see much diff in real life.
The problem with reviews/benchmarks, is how they do their testing. Was the sharpness test at maximum sharpness stopped down ? widest end ? tele end ? center or average ?

Best reviewer is yourself, and for expensive lens, my advice is to rent it. (Wait for a good special from Camera Rental Center.)
 

Bart Tan

New Member
Apr 4, 2014
292
3
0
bl
#20
The problem with reviews/benchmarks, is how they do their testing. Was the sharpness test at maximum sharpness stopped down ? widest end ? tele end ? center or average ?

Best reviewer is yourself, and for expensive lens, my advice is to rent it. (Wait for a good special from Camera Rental Center.)
Actually I owned the 17-35mm f2.8-4 Tamron and 18-35G. I prefer the 18-35G and it's quite sharp, sold it because underutilized.

For best review, I normally wait for DD advice. Haha
 

Top Bottom