Bit confused about the 16-35/F4 vs 17-35/F2.8

Started Nov 6, 2012 | Discussions thread
A Owens
Senior MemberPosts: 2,264
Like?
Re: Bit confused about the 16-35/F4 vs 17-35/F2.8
In reply to MoreorLess, Nov 7, 2012

MoreorLess wrote:

Reilly Diefenbach wrote:

The Tokina 16-28 is better and much cheaper than either of them if you don't want the best (the 14-24.)

Neither of these formerly good enough lenses are up to the "e" in my opinion.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=773&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=689&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=3

For many people of course its not just the price of the 14-24mm that puts them off but the size and the filter problems.

Thanks everyone for your responses. Much appreciated. It sounds like the 16-35 and 17-35 are about the same overall, but have different strengths in different areas.

I am rather staggered by how good the Tokina looks in that comparison - I need to take a look at that.

What puts me off the 14-24 is its propensity to flare, its impractical front element (I am rather hard on equipment), its limited range and finally that some reviews indicate that the D800 shows up weaknesses in optical performance that were not apparent with the last generation of 12mp bodies. But I probably need to try it for myself.

Thanks again.

-- hide signature --

Alistair Owens
www.gazeandgaze.com

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow