NIKON 16-35 f4 VS 17-35 F2.8D
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 бер 2020
- I have just sold my Nikon 16-35 f4 lens and purchased a 17-35 f2.8D.
This video tells you why i made this decision to change a new lens for a 20 year old one and discuss are we becoming obsessed with how sharp our images have to be?
TO BUY ME A COFFEE OR ONE IMAGE FILE A MONTH WITH MEMBERSHIP GO TO
ko-fi.com/johndexterphotography
If you think you would like a print of any image I have created, let me know which one from my
WEBSITE - at www.johndexterphotography.com/
INSTAGRAM - / johndexterphotography
MY CAMERA GEAR
CAMERAS - Nikon D4 & Df
LENSES - Nikon 17-35mm f2.8D, Nikon 35-70mm f2.8D, Nikon70-210mm f4, Nikon 100-300mm f5.6,, Nikon 300mm f2.8 ai and Nikon 105 f2.8 ais Micro.
FILTERS - B+W Polarizer, Neutral density + 3, 6 & 8.
EXTENTION TUBES - Nikon PN11 52.5mm..
CAMERA STRAP - Peak design.
CAMERA BAG - Lowepro Pro traffic 450 AW.
TRYPOD AND HEAD - Gitzo and Manfrotto ball head
PRINTER AND EDITING GEAR
PRINTER - Cannon Pixma pro 10s.
MONITOR - Eizo colour edge CG247X 24" & Asus 24".
COMPUTER - Acer Aspire desk top, Ipad Pro & Lenovo Think pad laptop.
SOFTWARE - Nikon Capture NX2, iColorama, Photoshop elements, Cannon Print studio pro, & OBS
I hope you liked this video, if you did please support me by sharing with your friends and subscribing to my channel and hit the notification bell to see future videos.
MUSIC BY Bensound.comblended them with some images from my library.
I bought one of these 17-35 2.8 lenses last week. I’m relatively new to Nikon DSLR. For the last twenty years I’ve been using an old Hasselblad 500cm, so you might be interested in my comparison of this Nikon lens relative to Hasselblad lenses.
So far I’m pleased with the lens. I bought it relatively inexpensively for £300. I researched Nikon ultra wide zooms and concluded that the 16-35 was the sharpest. But I don’t use wide angles very often, and couldn’t justify the hefty price tag. Also I read somewhere that Nikon’s g lenses have a life span of only ten years because of the solder material used or some other reason I now can’t remember. I don’t mind spending £200 on a 50 1.8g for ten years use: £20 per year. But not the high cost of the 16-35 g lens for only ten years. My Hasselblad lenses are fifty years old!
Ok. The 17-35 2.8 is not the sharpest lens in the world. Of the Nikon lenses I own, the 105 f2 dc and 50 f1.8 g are the sharpest. But it’s sharper than a Nikon 24-85 3.5-4.5 g vr I bought when I first started using my second hand d3x a few months ago. Ken Rockwell raves about this mid range zoom, but I find it passable: it’s ok for low light when you can use incredibly low (for a Hasselblad user) shutter speeds. I have a shoot planned for which I need a 24mm, and I will definitely use the 17-35 rather than the 24-85.
I can’t compare the 17-35 to the 16-35, but I can compare it to Hasselblad lenses. It is sharper than my 50 f4 lens (equivalent to 31mm in 35mm format), about the same as my 80 f2.8lens (50 in 35mm format), almost as sharp as my 100 f3.5 lens (which Hasselblad folks hold up as the sharpest standard lens) but not as sharp as my 150 f4 lens (100 in 35mm)
But the winning thing about this lens is what the image ‘feels’ like. I know that’s not objectively scientific, but this lens gives images which feel like my Hasselblad 100 3.5 lens using Provia 100 film. And I like that feel.
And I agree that it handles like a sturdy, well built lens: not like a piece of plastic that’s going to drop to bits within ten years. It’s bloody heavy though -another characteristic it shares with my Hasselblad lenses. I took it for a walk at the weekend, and I was looking forward to getting home
Just picked up the 17-25mm f/2.8D for a great price ($275 USD) and did a test shoot compared to my 105mm f/2.8D, and agree with you, the 105mm is much sharper. But I am pleased with the images, colour, bokeh and build quality!
I agree whole heartedly. I recently went back to a 17-35mm F2.8D bought on ebay for $550 au, and use it with the FTZ adaptor on my Z711. I did not like the 14-24 F4S lens as it felt like crap. And was not prepared to pay 3,500+ for the new 14-24 F2.8S, so the 17-35mm F2.8D Is a great fit and feel for me and my limited wide angle use. I do have the 24-70mm F2.8S that I can use at 24-35mm when ultimate sharpness is required, I got it cheap second hand on ebay for $2,000 au, however as you rightly insinuated, Ultimate sharpness is just a marketing hype to sell new stock, and mostly irrelevant for 90% of anyone's shots.
Great to hear. I picked up 17-35mm f/2.8D in great shape for about $275 USD, and while the AF is slow, speed is not an issue for the use case, and well built! I got the 24-70mm f/2.8D for about $215 USD. Loving the doctors migration to Z cams, lots of deals available, got a D500 and D850 with each under 500 clicks.
1990 would be 30 years. I think this came out around the turn of the millennium. I remember I bought my 20mm/2.8D in 1998 and this certainly came out after that.
John, let me ask you... does the tamron 17-35 accept circular filters?
Hi yes you can fit
@3:23 ......amen brother......answer....yuuup!
I agree totally. Too much sharpness for portraits will get you fired quick! I really like that 17-35mm D too. On the contrary to this comment the center is very sharp!
yes the famous one decent dx lens nikon has brought out .. compared to the tons of bodies they keep throwing at us
Are you thinking of the 17-55; the 17-35 is a full frame wideangle.
Dear John! First of all, thank you very much for so hart-open talk about 16-35 f4. I have this lens already half a year in my hands using on d750. My first impression was - what a great lens! Sharp on f4, fast focus, superb pics quality. I purchase a brand new lens and I've had no doubts that I am the first owner of the lens. but later on, I started to recognize the kind of soft noise or squeak around 20mm, every time. After consultations with Nikon technicians, they said to me that noise comes from a metal strip located inside the lens! Do not worry! Nothing bad. Now that noise sometimes disappears at all. how long who knows! I have to say that I am enjoying taking pictures with this lens. As well have to say excellent for working in wet conditions. I love it. I will appreciate if I have a possibility to see the photographs you have taken with 17-35mm f2.8, thank you in advance!
Hi Janis first of all i can not criticise the quality of the images that the 16-35 lens produces i think i made that clear in my video.
I love the build quality of the older Nikon lenses yes the glass has improved but not that much so what i was trying to get over was that build on the 16-35 felt cheap (although there not) and the focus and zoom where not smooth this annoyed me when using it where as the 17-35 is a joy to use and handle.
At the end of the day you have to ask yourself what you want out of the lens which most people would say image quality is paramount that probably makes me a bit strange?
All my work is ICM Abstract so a sharp lens is not essential but when i got the 17-35 i took 2 identical shots with both lenses and yes the 16-35 was a tad sharper but you could only see it at 100% zoom.
Thank you so much for you comments and enjoy the 16-35 and don't listen to the squeak unlike me.
If you would like to look at my images you can find my website @ john dexter photography.
All the best John.
I've had the 17-35 for many a year on my D810 best bit is on my Nikon F3 Carnot do that with the 16-35.
Just picked up the 17-35mm for a great price, and just got a D850, looking forward to the results, especially in low light!
Are we too obsessed? Yes.
Lens has to be sharper.
Lens is now too clinical.
Put a Tiffen Black Pro Mist filter on it.
Happy now.
There is a lesson there.
Hello, you made this video 3 years ago, and I have only just found your site. I totally agree with you. I bought my 17-35mm from Grays 10 years ago for £1400 new.
Mind is also sharp wide open, there are sharper lenses on paper, real world A2 prints fantastic. Thank you
Did you fart near the end of your video?
Such a stupid and unnecessary comment.
Where the sample comparation 🤣