Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Lenses
Wide-Angle
anyone using the 17-35mm 2.8?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="gqtuazon" data-source="post: 47235" data-attributes="member: 6573"><p>Hi Mike- I would suggest in holding off in getting an ultra-wide angle lens for now if your ultimate goal is to go FX. The reason being is that once you have a FX and DX camera, you'll quickly realize that the 24mm on FX, which has an equivalent 16mm FOV on your D7000, is actually wide enough on most situation. </p><p></p><p>I have the Nikon 16-35mm f4 VR which is much more updated, cheaper and sharper than the 17-35mm f2.8 but it is one of my least used lens since the 24-70-200 gets most of the action. But if you must have one, I would suggest the 16-35mm instead.</p><p></p><p>If you haven't invested in a good tripod and ballhead yet, that might be another expensive purchase that can equal the lens purchase.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="gqtuazon, post: 47235, member: 6573"] Hi Mike- I would suggest in holding off in getting an ultra-wide angle lens for now if your ultimate goal is to go FX. The reason being is that once you have a FX and DX camera, you'll quickly realize that the 24mm on FX, which has an equivalent 16mm FOV on your D7000, is actually wide enough on most situation. I have the Nikon 16-35mm f4 VR which is much more updated, cheaper and sharper than the 17-35mm f2.8 but it is one of my least used lens since the 24-70-200 gets most of the action. But if you must have one, I would suggest the 16-35mm instead. If you haven't invested in a good tripod and ballhead yet, that might be another expensive purchase that can equal the lens purchase. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Lenses
Wide-Angle
anyone using the 17-35mm 2.8?
Top
