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
My First Pro Glass
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="jwstl" data-source="post: 135742" data-attributes="member: 12977"><p>That's absolutely incorrect. Just because a lens doesn't have a constant 2.8 doesn't mean it isn't a "pro" lens. In fact, by most reviews I've read, the 16-35 is as good or better than the 17-35 at most focal lengths. And the 16-35 is a newer design and gives you that 1 extra mm, VR, Nano Crystal coating...</p><p>If you need 2.8 or shoot a lot of architecture (16-35 has some distortion at 16mm) then the 17-35 is a good choice but if that's not a deal breaker the 16-35 is the better lens.</p><p></p><p>Herre's a resolution test on the D800 which shows the 16-35 sharper in the center and corners at 5.6.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/03/d800-lens-selection" target="_blank">LensRentals.com - D800 Lens Selection</a></p><p></p><p>Comparison:</p><p></p><p><a href="http://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-16-35mm-f4g-vr" target="_blank">Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR Review</a></p><p></p><p><a href="http://theuntamedlandscape.blogspot.com/2010/04/new-nikon-af-s-16-35-f4-vr-lens.html" target="_blank">The Untamed Landscape: The new Nikon AF-S 16-35 f4 VR lens</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="jwstl, post: 135742, member: 12977"] That's absolutely incorrect. Just because a lens doesn't have a constant 2.8 doesn't mean it isn't a "pro" lens. In fact, by most reviews I've read, the 16-35 is as good or better than the 17-35 at most focal lengths. And the 16-35 is a newer design and gives you that 1 extra mm, VR, Nano Crystal coating... If you need 2.8 or shoot a lot of architecture (16-35 has some distortion at 16mm) then the 17-35 is a good choice but if that's not a deal breaker the 16-35 is the better lens. Herre's a resolution test on the D800 which shows the 16-35 sharper in the center and corners at 5.6. [url=http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/03/d800-lens-selection]LensRentals.com - D800 Lens Selection[/url] Comparison: [url=http://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-16-35mm-f4g-vr]Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR Review[/url] [url=http://theuntamedlandscape.blogspot.com/2010/04/new-nikon-af-s-16-35-f4-vr-lens.html]The Untamed Landscape: The new Nikon AF-S 16-35 f4 VR lens[/url] [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Lenses
Wide-Angle
My First Pro Glass
Top