Nikon 17-35 f/2.8 or 16-35 f/4 VR?

System · January 6, 2013

HELP!
I'm looking for a wide zoom to finish off my collection of Nikon glass.

Mostly, I shoot landscape type shots. I did, however, just buy some stands and umbrellas for my speedlights to try my hand at "people" photos.

I can get a lightly used 17-35 for about the same as a new 16-35. If anyone has experience with both lenses, please give some guidance. This will be used on a D700 body.

Thanks

ziggy53 · January 6, 2013

I normally advocate a larger aperture over stabilization, but for your applications of landscape and portraiture, either lens might be fine.

For landscapes I typically shoot at smaller apertures anyway, and for portraiture these WA zooms will mostly be valuable for environmental portraits and group portraits, both of which will generally use smaller apertures too.

If you do shoot landscapes early and late in the day, then the stabilization might come in handy for handheld images.

Matthew Saville · January 9, 2013

Both are incredibly sharp. The 16-35 is probably sharper, and a better investment for landscape photography in general. The 17-35 however, with it's f/2.8 aperture, might be better if you do more specialized things like star trails and other low-light shooting, and not just traditional landscapes. But then again, when it comes to star trails I find that f/2.8 isn't even very useful anyways; I'd rather have a 24mm f/1.4 anyways! So, back to the 16-35 being my long-term preference.

babowc · January 10, 2013

I've never used a 17-35, but I definitely love my 16-35. The VR helps a lot for landscape/architecture, but the f/4 is f/4...

Tusker · January 10, 2013

16/35 nikon lens
Jeff, I bought a 16/35 for a long camping trip last Summer. This is of course an "N" lens. Trip turned out to be over 11,000 miles all totaled . The lens is VR, and 1.4 -- I am more than happy with this lens and would buy another if something happened to it. It is just my skills that need work. Many photos were taken but this is one. With my D700, low light is almost never a problem. The desert can at times present it's own collection of problems. This area just North and West of Moab Utah was once known as Robbers Roost-- Last one to used the area for this was one "BILL TIBBETTS" in the 1920's. Bill was the 'real deal', as we say around here,and there is a book for those interested. You can Google him as well.

anonymouscuban · January 14, 2013

I own the 17-35 and shoot a D700. I've used it for landscape and the occasional portrait. I have absolutely no complaints. I'm amazed by how sharp this lens is. AF works great on it. It's plenty wide for landscape stuff but you can zoom to 35mm to do some portrait work. However, at 35mm, you'll get distortion so you have to be careful when shooting people but that's an issue of focal length and not specific to this lens.

Here is a landscape photo take with the 17-35 lens on the D700 at ISO 500 (forgot to check ISO):

Here is a portrait shot, again, same setup:

And here is a shot where you can appreciate sharpness (sorry, my daughter making silly faces):

jww · January 14, 2013

I love my 17-35 f2.8 and is incredibly sharp. I'd rather have the f2.8 over the f4. As far as stabilization is concerned at lower shutter speeds, I've simply used a tripod.

Nikon 17-35 f/2.8 or 16-35 f/4 VR?

Comments