16 - 35 f4 VR vs. 17 - 35 f2.8

Started May 1, 2012 | Discussions thread
Kiet_Hang
Contributing MemberPosts: 629
Like?
Re: 16 - 35 f4 VR vs. 17 - 35 f2.8
In reply to marty, May 4, 2012

I find very little advantage in the 17-35 over the 16-35 for my use.

The 16-35 is sharper than the 17-35
It is 1mm wider (doesn't seem like much until your back is against a wall)

The 16-35 is weather sealed ( important if you are shooting in wet/misty conditions)
The 16-35 has VR (not really that important to me)
Has more distortion than the 17-35
Lighter than the 17-35, but bigger

The 17-35 of course is fater (2.8), but lacks VR
Smaller than 16-35 (but heavier)
Not weather sealed
Not as sharp as the 16-35
Less distortion than the 16-35

I don't care much for VR or 2.8 since I usually shoot closed down to f/10 and on a tripod. In the end, I decided to keep the 16-35 because of the weather sealing and sharper than 17-35. I will be in a situaiton to shoot in misty/rainy conditions and the seals on the 16-35 gives me better peace of mind.

Of course these are just my opinions and other's will vary..

-- hide signature --

I am not a brand loyalist, I can take equally bad pictures with any brand...

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow