Luv4nature
Senior Member
Done a side-by-side comparison between the 16-35 VR and 17-35/2.8. The 16-35VR makes the 17-35/2.8 look like an outdated lens, especially in corner sharpness 
Nikon 16-35mm F/4G ED VR
- Thread starter gamester74
- Start date
Done a side-by-side comparison between the 16-35 VR and 17-35/2.8. The 16-35VR makes the 17-35/2.8 look like an outdated lens, especially in corner sharpness
i think the 17 is surely an oldie
but how nice if u cud include some pics of those you tested so that those who doubted can eat their words
Sorry for noobie question. I just want to know why that expensive lens only has maximum aperture 4 and not down to 1.8 or 1.4 like some expensive lens? As I've previously know, lens with widest aperture through out all focal range has premium prices. But now this lens (also like nikkkor 12-24mm f4) only has maximum aperture 4 and very expensive. I mean we can also have similar focal lengeth from the 18-55mm kit lens and we can set to f4.
Thanks
HK77
Thanks
HK77
hahaha, i have the exact same dilema as you, a wide or a mid-zoom, but most of my friends recommended wide instead, so good buy! guess is my turn to go WIDE! =) anw care to share where u got ur lens and at what price?
anw tomcat i also had a second dilema of 17-35 or 16-35, but ur links helped me made a decision!
anw tomcat i also had a second dilema of 17-35 or 16-35, but ur links helped me made a decision!
Numnumball
Senior Member
Becos of Nano against flare and is sealed against tough weather conditions, becos its a FX lens, becos it has aspherical and ED glass elements and becos its a pro grade wide zoom for FX.. becos its has SWM, becos its the first VR wide angle zoom,, will these reasons be enough?
Becos of Nano against flare and is sealed against tough weather conditions, becos its a FX lens, becos it has aspherical and ED glass elements and becos its a pro grade wide zoom for FX.. becos its has SWM, becos its the first VR wide angle zoom,, will these reasons be enough?
i have one more! becos its a 2010 lens!
Its due to the fact that not everyone needs a F1.4 lens. The 16-35 caters to a new emergent market - The Beginner hopping to Serious Amateur. This ''new market'' are new to the Nikon system, therefore most probably not have old Nikons which require a aperture ring. Determining the size of the market and the ''wants'', selling this F4 would be viable.
Likewise. If you want the 24 F1.4, go get it. But make sure you know how to exploit it at $3.2k. If not, just stick to your kit lens, like you said, ''set to f4''.
Everyone has a preference.
That said, after seeing how the 16-35 perform, it is indeed much much sharper than the 17-35.
Thing is, both lenses I will not own for a long time since I have no intention of moving away from DX which is serving my needs well.
That said, after seeing how the 16-35 perform, it is indeed much much sharper than the 17-35.
Thing is, both lenses I will not own for a long time since I have no intention of moving away from DX which is serving my needs well.
twiki
New Member
george671,
It's an AF-S lens (not just AF), so how can it not have a motor inside?
It's not magic, you know.
It's an AF-S lens (not just AF), so how can it not have a motor inside?
It's not magic, you know.
Big Kahuna
Senior Member
If I am not stucked with the 17-35 f2.8, I'll definately go for the 16-35 f4.....all because I use it mostly on travel and weight is important....also the 2.8 is of little use since I'll stop down to f4 and beyond :sweat:
Numnumball
Senior Member
Numnumball
Senior Member
:bsmilie::bsmilie::bsmilie:
Busted.....
Have u tried Lords or TK Foto? Think their prices are more competitive
yup, shall ring them up tmr, thanks! i read a thread abt a recent shop that got seized, which is tt huh?
Numnumball
Senior Member
stevepow
Senior Member
maybe 1hr ago? haha wow tt's quite a big diff!
Singapore dollar is rising leh.
