Helpful Posts Helpful Posts:  0
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Which lens Nikon 17-35mm or 16-35mm FX

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Victoria - Australia
    Posts
    208
    Real Name
    Debbie

    Which lens Nikon 17-35mm or 16-35mm FX

    Hi All,

    Can anyone give me some good arguments on which of these two lenses is better and why. The Nikon 17-35mm is an f2.8 lens while the 16-35mm is an f4 lens.

    Primarily I will be using it for general wide angle but plan to also take it underwater with me. I have no idea why one would be better than the other.

    Please help.

    Debbie

  2. #2
    Black Pearl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Whitburn, Sunderland
    Posts
    2,181
    Real Name
    Robin

    Re: Which lens Nikon 17-35mm or 16-35mm FX

    The 16-35mm is a brand new design and has VRII - optically it's better and while you lose a stop the VR (in my opinion) is more useful.

    That said it might come down to getting a housing so the choice may not be yours.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Victoria - Australia
    Posts
    208
    Real Name
    Debbie

    Re: Which lens Nikon 17-35mm or 16-35mm FX

    Robin,

    Thanks for this. I have the underwater housing already and can accommodate either lens.

  4. #4
    Letrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Haarlem, Netherlands
    Posts
    1,683
    Real Name
    Peter

    Re: Which lens Nikon 17-35mm or 16-35mm FX

    I would argue that the F/2.8 might be more useful to you in general. The 16mm would give you a fraction more wideangle though.

    Whether VR is really useful on this lens I don't know. I think you don't really need it for wideangle, but more for the 85mm + range.
    I am assuming you shoot FX, otherwise these lenses don't make sense.

    It might boil down to size and weight and price in the end.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Victoria - Australia
    Posts
    208
    Real Name
    Debbie

    Re: Which lens Nikon 17-35mm or 16-35mm FX

    Quote Originally Posted by Letrow View Post
    I would argue that the F/2.8 might be more useful to you in general. The 16mm would give you a fraction more wideangle though.

    Whether VR is really useful on this lens I don't know. I think you don't really need it for wideangle, but more for the 85mm + range.
    I am assuming you shoot FX, otherwise these lenses don't make sense.

    It might boil down to size and weight and price in the end.
    Thanks, I do shoot FX and wondered whether the VR is useful for wide angle as I always use a tripod which means you need to turn the VR off. Still think maybe the 17-35mm as I have also just found out that I can only get a zoom gear for this lens and not the 16-35mm.

    Thanks for your thoughts.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •