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
Nikon 16mm-35mm f/4 vs. 18mm-35mm f/3.5-4.5
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="rocketman122" data-source="post: 384492" data-attributes="member: 14443"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>you might also consider a used 17-35 2.8 AFS which sell used for around $700-800</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="rocketman122, post: 384492, member: 14443"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Lenses
Wide-Angle
Nikon 16mm-35mm f/4 vs. 18mm-35mm f/3.5-4.5
Top
