Nikon 16mm-35mm f/4 vs. 18mm-35mm f/3.5-4.5
- Thread starter Scott Ramsey
- Start date
rocketman122
Senior Member
KR says everything is the best thing since sliced bread because if he his reviews are anything negative you might not buy and if he psyches you up enough to buy, you might use one of his links to adorama or BH and he gets money for that. when he used to say negative things about gear in the past, today he realizes he profits from it so if he says its great, more potential money in his pocket and hes the con of the century imo.
DXOmark is SH** and I dont believe a thing they say anymore. to me all the reviews like consumer reports is done by how much is being paid to them.
either one of the lenses are great and it doesnt matter bottom line so youll be shooting at no less than f/5 and mostly around f/8-11. so this is no issue and you could get away with cheaper lenses if you wanted to for landscape. you wont see a difference if you tried hard to look. every lens is sharp at f/8
the reviews for your needs doesnt make an iota of difference because you will shooting stoped down. talk to me about f/4 levels and ill tell you both are meh.
you might also consider a used 17-35 2.8 AFS which sell used for around $700-800
Im with an older tamron 17-35 2.8-4 lens which is excellent. I will be upgrading to the newly announced (not released) 15-30mm 2.8 with VC which IMO will sell around $1200 and will be on the 14-24 AFS level or better it. tamron says to better it.
I find DxOMark handy to check individual differences between lenses and their performance throughout the range or aperture. It's just their overall score of a cam or lens I pay close to no attention to. But to check how a lens performs on my cam and what it would do on an eventual upgrade is great. They do have a reliable and consistent method to their testing even when it doesn't necessarily say much about the performance in the field.
Rockwell can be amusing but I wouldn't rely on his advice even if'd be about buying a pair of socks.
Rockwell can be amusing but I wouldn't rely on his advice even if'd be about buying a pair of socks.
Last edited:
rocketman122
Senior Member
I prefer seeing reviews of lenses that show pictures than going by a review that shows numbers. numbers dont show how a lens performs.
dxomark is SH**. just garbage.
dxomark is SH**. just garbage.
Scott Ramsey
Senior Member
I agree, 90% of my shots are at f/11. I don't get hung up too much on the numbers but am curious as to why you don't think DxOMark is reliable? Apparently others feel the same and I was just wondering. Thanks for your input.
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
Nothing but praise for the 16-35mm f4. One nice thing is that all movements are internal, so it seals a bit better since there's no outer movement of the barrel, if that's of any concern to you.
If you're shooting in the sweet spot then both lenses are going to perform for you.
If you're shooting in the sweet spot then both lenses are going to perform for you.
Numbers are an indication of performance. Pictures only say something about how well someone can make that lens perform.
I read plenty a review (with pictures) about the Tam 150-600mm and they ranged from splendid to crap at 600mm. I can look at pictures all I like but a picture usually depends upon the "cam + lens + user + skill + processing" combination. Now I got and shot the Tam, I wonder more what exactly qualifies as sharp. I think it's pretty sharp even at 600mm but others think it is soft. Maybe my sharp is their soft and they're used to a different kind of sharp. In the end, how could we ever value anything without putting numbers on it?
rocketman122
Senior Member
because its just numbers. reminds me of photodo.com of the film days when an mtf number would decide if a person bought a lens or not. most here probably dont even remember or know what im talking about.
there was another website where people inputted number for the lens from the wide angle shot open and stopped down aperture and the same on the tele side of the lens. everyone who had this lens gave an input and it was rounded off. this is how people bought their lenses. based on numbers of others people. what dumb people in this world.
one lens a certain number, another lens a different number and so its better. but thats just a small detail in how it really performs.
specs on anything give an idication but cannot give a true picture of what a lens does and how it performs. there are many other criteria.
the 85 1.4 and 1.8G lenses have the 1.4 as a higher number than the 1.8 where in actuality, the 1.8 is sharper at open aperture compared to the 1.4
same with the D610 D750
Nikon D750 versus Nikon D610 - Side by side camera comparison - DxOMark
from the rave reviews, the D750 is clearly superior but yet its speced as the same as the D610 (more or less)
they have no credebility in my eyes. just SH**.
Last edited:
rocketman122
Senior Member
youre naive to think the 150-600 is sharp at 600mm. anyone would know its limits are around 400-450. after that use it only if you must but be aware of its limitation. you didnt think you could pay $1000 and get a 600mm thats killer sharp, did you? its acceptable but not in a pro range. even a 400 2.8 AFS cropped to the 600mm the tamron can do is sharper.
its with every lens you buy. every zoom has its weaker side and stronger side of the focal range. this is 101.
same with cameras. they say the D3S can do native to 12800, but you must consider the images arent going to look excellent and are a use under extreme circumstances.
same with shooting a lens wide open. no lens is great wide open as it is stopped down even 2/3 of a stop which can make a huge change in performance from open aperture.
for me numbers means nothing. I stick to reputable reviews. if theres a mixed bag of assessment of the gear in question, I wait. read as much as I can then decide if I want it.
how do I know what I think is sharp for me and whats for others? I look at their work, simple as that. if I see the persons pictures and they offer raw downloads as well, then I decide for myself. its quite simple to me. better than dxomarks numbers anyday. let me see the actual files in full raw and I will judge myself.
I very much believe that dxomark gets payed and the tests reflect that a bit here or there. I do not think they are honest. like many including KR. they may look professional because their website gives a feel like its a lab that does expertise assessment. but to me I see right though it all. after all, I am a photographer. my eyes are trained to see BS.
Who cares it's not as sharp as the pro line. I'm never gonna shoot the "sell your grandmother first" lenses so there's none of those to compare it to. I shoot at 7.1 and it's doing a good job. Certainly for that price. My 200mm is sharper on my D750 but that's of little use since I can't crop a dot into a monster.
If you want a review and pictures: Tamron 150-600 lens test
I'd call that sharp enough. If I have a good day and it is a good day I see a similar result once in a while. Not often but that's because I still suck at shooting this kind of lens.
I bought that 200mm based upon numbers. The fact it had breathing room helped too. But even while it wasn't the sharpest lens for the D3300 and not the cheapest, the numbers indicated that the better the cam, the more that lens would shine. After I got the D750 it turned out the numbers were correct.
A scientific method might not say much about a lot of factors but it'll tell more about the qualities of a lens than the opinion of some dude that shot some. That's also why we no longer go to shamans when feeling sick.
If you want a review and pictures: Tamron 150-600 lens test
I'd call that sharp enough. If I have a good day and it is a good day I see a similar result once in a while. Not often but that's because I still suck at shooting this kind of lens.
I bought that 200mm based upon numbers. The fact it had breathing room helped too. But even while it wasn't the sharpest lens for the D3300 and not the cheapest, the numbers indicated that the better the cam, the more that lens would shine. After I got the D750 it turned out the numbers were correct.
A scientific method might not say much about a lot of factors but it'll tell more about the qualities of a lens than the opinion of some dude that shot some. That's also why we no longer go to shamans when feeling sick.
Last edited:
After reading all of the interesting points, if 18 mm is wide enough for you and you don't mind using a smaller filter, the 18-35mm is not a bad choice. I have nikon 16-35mm and i am pretty happy with it especially its flare resistance against the sun.
Glenn
Caution: Typos may occur randomly.
Bad assumption on my part I thought it was 72mm.
Glenn
Caution: Typos may occur randomly.
Scott Ramsey
Senior Member
good point but I've been shooting with a 24mm prime and haven't had any issues with that.
Scott Ramsey
Senior Member
thanks Glenn, I've decided to go with the 16-35, I think I need the extra 2mm
Size matters!
