sold my tokina 16-28, got the new nikon 18-35

Started Apr 25, 2013 | Discussions
narddogg81
Contributing MemberPosts: 995
Like?
sold my tokina 16-28, got the new nikon 18-35
Apr 25, 2013

my plans for shedding weight while maintaining quality are nearly complete.  Sold my 70-200 2.8 VR for the new 70-200 f4, and sold my tokina 16-28 for the nikon 18-35.  I am now saving 2.6 pounds in hiking weight from those 2 lenses.  the 70-200 f4 has superior IQ to my old 70-200 2.8, and the 18-35 so far looks very comparable in IQ to the tokina, with the benefit of less flare and the ability to use my ND grads again.   Im feeling pretty good right now.  I think i may try seeing how i like using just those 2 zooms with the 50 1.8 in between, rather than my 35-70 2.8.  That would save me another pound.

Ernie Misner
Senior MemberPosts: 1,831
Like?
Re: sold my tokina 16-28, got the new nikon 18-35
In reply to narddogg81, Apr 25, 2013

Good info there, thanks!   Let us know how the 18-35 works out for you.    It sounds great so far.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Michael Siemon
Regular MemberPosts: 266Gear list
Like?
Re: sold my tokina 16-28, got the new nikon 18-35
In reply to narddogg81, Apr 25, 2013

narddogg81 wrote:

my plans for shedding weight while maintaining quality are nearly complete.  Sold my 70-200 2.8 VR for the new 70-200 f4, and sold my tokina 16-28 for the nikon 18-35.  I am now saving 2.6 pounds in hiking weight from those 2 lenses.  the 70-200 f4 has superior IQ to my old 70-200 2.8, and the 18-35 so far looks very comparable in IQ to the tokina, with the benefit of less flare and the ability to use my ND grads again.   Im feeling pretty good right now.  I think i may try seeing how i like using just those 2 zooms with the 50 1.8 in between, rather than my 35-70 2.8.  That would save me another pound.

I'm with you on the 70-200 f/4. I am also getting the 18-35, but in my case I am thinking of getting rid of the Nikkor 16-35, which I have never much liked. I have the Tokina, and will definitely keep it, since it is wonderful at 16mm (unlike the Nikkor). I will be testing the 18-35 vs. the 16-35 at 18, 20, 24 and maybe 35; but from the reviews, I suspect I will be happy. I have used VR on the 16-35 a bit, and might miss that; decisions, decisions...

-- hide signature --

Michael L. Siemon

 Michael Siemon's gear list:Michael Siemon's gear list
Nikon 1 V2 Sony Alpha 7 Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF Nikkor 105mm f/2D DC +13 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Bohemien
Regular MemberPosts: 423Gear list
Like?
Re: sold my tokina 16-28, got the new nikon 18-35
In reply to narddogg81, Apr 25, 2013

Coming from the Tokina 12-24 on DX, I bought the 18-35 along with the D600. I never really got the hang of the Tokina, *when* it delivered it produced some great shots at 12mm, but I never left it on the D90 for walkaround. The 18-35 is different, I really like it as a wide walkaround lens so far.

I only haven't found a way to get the extreme corners sharp even at f/8, but I didn't expect it. It's sharp and has good contrast, I like it at all focal lengths, and it even has nice OOF rendering for an UWA zoom, I think.

One example from yesterday (more and "test shots" showing the bokeh on my flickr stream):

Three Trees on flickr

-- hide signature --
 Bohemien's gear list:Bohemien's gear list
Nikon D600
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
lanefAU
Senior MemberPosts: 4,677Gear list
Like?
Re: sold my tokina 16-28, got the new nikon 18-35
In reply to Michael Siemon, Apr 25, 2013

Michael Siemon wrote:

narddogg81 wrote:

my plans for shedding weight while maintaining quality are nearly complete.  Sold my 70-200 2.8 VR for the new 70-200 f4, and sold my tokina 16-28 for the nikon 18-35.  I am now saving 2.6 pounds in hiking weight from those 2 lenses.  the 70-200 f4 has superior IQ to my old 70-200 2.8, and the 18-35 so far looks very comparable in IQ to the tokina, with the benefit of less flare and the ability to use my ND grads again.   Im feeling pretty good right now.  I think i may try seeing how i like using just those 2 zooms with the 50 1.8 in between, rather than my 35-70 2.8.  That would save me another pound.

I'm with you on the 70-200 f/4. I am also getting the 18-35, but in my case I am thinking of getting rid of the Nikkor 16-35, which I have never much liked.

Why you did not like the 16-35? Mine on my D800 is a very good performer. I think the new 18-35 has no VR compared to most new lenses. I don't know about the new one, but I used to have the old 18-35, it was not sharp on the corners and it was quite noticeable when shooting a group of people.

The 16-35 is a far better lens:

Quite sharp on the corners.

 lanefAU's gear list:lanefAU's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X II Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jfk
jfk
Senior MemberPosts: 2,938
Like?
Re: sold my tokina 16-28, got the new nikon 18-35
In reply to Bohemien, Apr 25, 2013

Bohemien wrote:

Coming from the Tokina 12-24 on DX, I bought the 18-35 along with the D600. I never really got the hang of the Tokina, *when* it delivered it produced some great shots at 12mm, but I never left it on the D90 for walkaround. The 18-35 is different, I really like it as a wide walkaround lens so far.

I only haven't found a way to get the extreme corners sharp even at f/8, but I didn't expect it. It's sharp and has good contrast, I like it at all focal lengths, and it even has nice OOF rendering for an UWA zoom, I think.

One example from yesterday (more and "test shots" showing the bokeh on my flickr stream):

Three Trees on flickr

-- hide signature --

You might check for front or back focus.  When I first tested the 18-35 on my D600 the corners and a bit of the sides where not sharp.  Had to fine tune the lens to a +8,  then everything really sharpened up.

jfk

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jfk
jfk
Senior MemberPosts: 2,938
Like?
Re: sold my tokina 16-28, got the new nikon 18-35
In reply to narddogg81, Apr 25, 2013

narddogg81 wrote:

my plans for shedding weight while maintaining quality are nearly complete.  Sold my 70-200 2.8 VR for the new 70-200 f4, and sold my tokina 16-28 for the nikon 18-35.  I am now saving 2.6 pounds in hiking weight from those 2 lenses.  the 70-200 f4 has superior IQ to my old 70-200 2.8, and the 18-35 so far looks very comparable in IQ to the tokina, with the benefit of less flare and the ability to use my ND grads again.   Im feeling pretty good right now.  I think i may try seeing how i like using just those 2 zooms with the 50 1.8 in between, rather than my 35-70 2.8.  That would save me another pound.

The 18-35 should do you well.  I'm thinking of this very kit for hiking also, minus the 35-70 though.

In my case,  I'm debating between using my 70-300vr, or buy the 70-200 f4.   If you've had experience with the 70-300vr, would appreciate your thoughts between it and your new 70-200 f4 for landscapes?

Thanks

jfk

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
lanefAU
Senior MemberPosts: 4,677Gear list
Like?
Re: sold my tokina 16-28, got the new nikon 18-35
In reply to jfk, Apr 25, 2013

jfk wrote:

narddogg81 wrote:

my plans for shedding weight while maintaining quality are nearly complete.  Sold my 70-200 2.8 VR for the new 70-200 f4, and sold my tokina 16-28 for the nikon 18-35.  I am now saving 2.6 pounds in hiking weight from those 2 lenses.  the 70-200 f4 has superior IQ to my old 70-200 2.8, and the 18-35 so far looks very comparable in IQ to the tokina, with the benefit of less flare and the ability to use my ND grads again.   Im feeling pretty good right now.  I think i may try seeing how i like using just those 2 zooms with the 50 1.8 in between, rather than my 35-70 2.8.  That would save me another pound.

The 18-35 should do you well.  I'm thinking of this very kit for hiking also, minus the 35-70 though.

In my case,  I'm debating between using my 70-300vr, or buy the 70-200 f4.   If you've had experience with the 70-300vr, would appreciate your thoughts between it and your new 70-200 f4 for landscapes?

The 70-300 VR has performed well on my D700 and is doing the same on my D800. I am happy with its performance and I am not prepared to lug anything bulkier around as I am already carrying my 24-70 & 16-35.

Here is a sample shot at 300 mm

http://www.pbase.com/image/149697627/large

Here is 100% Crop of the above shot.

 lanefAU's gear list:lanefAU's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X II Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Michael Siemon
Regular MemberPosts: 266Gear list
Like?
Re: sold my tokina 16-28, got the new nikon 18-35
In reply to lanefAU, Apr 25, 2013

lanefAU wrote:

Why you did not like the 16-35? Mine on my D800 is a very good performer. I think the new 18-35 has no VR compared to most new lenses. I don't know about the new one, but I used to have the old 18-35, it was not sharp on the corners and it was quite noticeable when shooting a group of people.

The 16-35 is a far better lens:

I may keep the 16-35 for the VR (though so far, I've only used that in deep shade -- e.g. at Muir Woods). It isn't particularly good at 16, though (even if you don't mind the distortion). The Tokina 16-28 is much better there (and in general, except for more problems with flare). It's just that the 16-35 is a heavy beast and I simply haven't much taken to it. It is, of course, a lot better than the older 18-35 (which I had; it's main good point was its weight ) I have a new 18-35 on order, and I will be taking comparison shots from 18mm on between that and the 16-35.

-- hide signature --

Michael Siemon

 Michael Siemon's gear list:Michael Siemon's gear list
Nikon 1 V2 Sony Alpha 7 Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR Nikon AF Nikkor 105mm f/2D DC +13 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Bohemien
Regular MemberPosts: 423Gear list
Like?
Re: sold my tokina 16-28, got the new nikon 18-35
In reply to jfk, Apr 25, 2013

I already fine tuned the lens, value needed was only -1. The sides are sharp, just the most extreme corners show a little bit of blur. Of course, it's hard to discern if it's an effect of DOF, didn't do any "brick wall" tests yet.

Can't test it right now as I sent it in to Nikon today for checking why my copy emits a high-pitched whine when focusing. We checked against other Nikkor lenses at the shop, all were completely silent.

-- hide signature --
 Bohemien's gear list:Bohemien's gear list
Nikon D600
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Bohemien
Regular MemberPosts: 423Gear list
Like?
70-300VR vs 70-200 f4
In reply to jfk, Apr 25, 2013

There's a thread in the Nikon SLR Lens Talk Forum where user breivogel (not the thread starter) compared the two lenses regarding sharpness. Did not look all too bad for the 70-300 IMHO.

-- hide signature --
 Bohemien's gear list:Bohemien's gear list
Nikon D600
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
narddogg81
Contributing MemberPosts: 995
Like?
Re: sold my tokina 16-28, got the new nikon 18-35
In reply to Bohemien, Apr 25, 2013

i think most of what people perceive as corner softness is really DOF and field curvature issues.  When trying to get maximum DOF, you should really be focusing at or near the hyperfocal distance of the lens at your particular focal length and aperture, regardless of where the subject is.  a less precise rule of thumb is 1/3 of the into the image.  DOF is not evenly distributed, there is much less in front of the subject than there is behind.  At 18mm and f8, the hyperfocal distance on FF is at ~ 5ft.  some of the shots i see the person focuses at a tree 50 feet away but is expecting the ground at their feet to be perfectly sharp in the corners as well, when n that scenario they should be focusing closer, and the distant objects will fall into the DOF behind the focus point.  If i focus properly for max DOF, i get sharp results at 18mm even in the far corners with this lens

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
breivogel
Senior MemberPosts: 1,262Gear list
Like?
Re: 70-300VR vs 70-200 f4
In reply to Bohemien, Apr 26, 2013

If you use 200-300 on the 70-300,  it degrades a lot.  At 300, you are better off cropping, as the astigmatism and low contrast are so bad that there is a net loss in quality. The 70-200 takes a 1.4TC, which should produce much better quality, and images that can still be cropped for more mag.

The 70-200 is just slightly heavier than the 70-300, and much nicer to use - if you can afford it.

 breivogel's gear list:breivogel's gear list
Nikon D300 Nikon D5100 Nikon D800 Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G +5 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Liviu Namolovan
Regular MemberPosts: 480
Like?
Re: Vew 18-35mm details
In reply to narddogg81, Apr 27, 2013

I would like to know some of your impressions regarding the new 18-35mm

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
A Owens
Senior MemberPosts: 2,264
Like?
Re: Vew 18-35mm details
In reply to Liviu Namolovan, Apr 27, 2013

Liviu Namolovan wrote:

I would like to know some of your impressions regarding the new 18-35mm

Look at JFK's post above. He provides a link to a brief video review. Looks like a good lens. These lighter, cheaper lenses Nikon is turning out at the moment have a lot to commend them. The 70-200 F4 is possibly the best 70-200 Nikon makes, the 85/1.8 is very good as is the 28/1.8 and it will be interesting to see if this 18-35 is in the same ethos. For landscapers, big apertures are not important. Weight and optical quality are.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
painterdude
Senior MemberPosts: 2,785Gear list
Like?
Re: sold my tokina 16-28, got the new nikon 18-35
In reply to jfk, Apr 27, 2013

I have used the stellar Canon 70-200 2.8 in the past but sold it off to go Nikon. The 70-300 in comparison ..compares very well. The only issue I have is at the long end.. With mine is not so much a blur issue as a fringe issue in bright light where contrast is higher. To be fair, this issue is not apparent generally, until you really start pixel peeping.

It also needs to be noted  that unless you are printing  mongo sized prints ..this issue and any small softness issues ..are not even going to be seen!! I just looked through an entire landscape book filled with amazingly  sharp and colorful shots. I thought a high end camera and good lens combo had captured the scenes. Wrong. An old small Fuji p&s was used.

Soo back to the 70-300..My take ..shoot it to its strengths and its an excellent lens..I have it on my D800 all the time and have. @70mm its cracking sharp! A steal for the price and if you are not into huge prints ( but you may be given you have a mega pixel FF)  ..its as good as the more expensive stuff IMHO

g

http://skylightvistas.weebly.com/index.html

 painterdude's gear list:painterdude's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix F770EXR Nikon D90 Nikon D800E
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads