16-35 f/4 or 24 f/2.8?

Looking to move to FX eventually, and will need a wide angle lens. I prefer fast lenses, so if the 16-35mm was f/2.8, i'd stump up and go for it. How do these new and old lenses compare in image quality? Is the 20mm f/2.8 worth the huge premium for 4mm?

Thanks

I was actually just looking at reviews around the web on the 20, 24 and 28 2.8's.

It looks like you can get a used 20 for about the 1/3 the price of the 16-35. It also looks like they are getting aged, but still great lenses and still comparable, if not sometimes better, than the best zooms today.

--
http://www.OneFrameStudios.com
http://www.pbase.com/happypoppeye

I just went through this in the past few weeks. I've been looking for a wide that fit my needs and style of shooting. The first thing I did was to figure out my sweet spot for wide angles. It turned out to be 24mm or so. I looked at the 20 f/2.8, 24 f/2.8 and 28 f/2.8 for primes. Based on all the reviews, tests and owners, I determined that the 24 f/2.8 was the best of those three optically.

I looked at the 14-24 and the 17-35 f/2.8 and decided the best bet was the 17-35 f/2.8 because it gave me room around that 24mm sweet spot. These are just quite expensive.

I bought the 16-35 f/4 because is just plane fits perfectly into my needs. I don't need f/2.8 and it's a perfect match for a full frame version of the DX 12-24 f/4 Nikkor. The VRII might come in handy as well, but I don't know. I also think the IQ might be a little better than those older primes.

One thing you mentioned was that you'd jump on the 16-35 f/4 if it was f/2.8. That's a little confusing to me with Nikon's 17-35 f/2.8 available. It's more, but you'd expect that for an f/2.8 lens. It's IQ is about as good as it gets. What is holding you back from this lens? It can't be the 1mm wide side because you're considering a prime lens. It can't be the price because you'd jump on the 16-35 if it were 2.8. I don't get it.
--
Cheers, Craig

Equipment in Plan via Profile

The 20/2.8 and 24/2.8 actually do better than most tests indicate IF you can remove the CA in the borders and corners (see the slrgear.com tests with the D700). Also, the 24/2.8 corner issues appear (to me) to be also a result of field curvature.

I've tested my 20/2.8 AF-D against my 16-85 at 20mm and it's actually slightly better or certainly equivalent at f/3.5 on up IF you remove the CA (which NX2 does very well). I plan on testing my 24/2.8 AIS against my 16-85 as well when I get some time.

My 24/2.8 AIS (same optics as the 24/2.8 AF-D) has excellent center sharpness wide open and stopped down to f/5.6 all corner issues on my D300 seem to be gone (with CA removal of course).

If that D700 price will just come down a bit I'll get a chance to test these on a FX sensor . . . .

John

I'm using at 24/2.8 AI on my D700 - I like this lens a lot. Good center sharpness at all apertures, and sharp across the frame if you stop down to f/8 or f/11.

Thanks for your reply. I see what you mean, what is holding me back from 17-35 f/2.8?

Well, I would be hesitant on spending so much on quite an old design. In fact, I would be hesitant on spending so much full stop. $1k seems to be around my personal limit. I would jump on the 16-35 if it were f/2.8 at $1200 or less i suppose i should have said. (perhaps a bit optimistic). I'm also always a bit wary of buying second hand.

If i got a d700 & 24mm f/2.8, paired with my existing 50mm f/1.4 and 105mm f/2.8 i'd have a pretty high quality, lightweight travel kit, if somewhat impractical with lens changing. I could get AF-S 70-300mm as an option too.

On FF, the fixed optics such as 24 mil.2.8 is better then any zoom in that range.

mark_mc said:

Thanks for your reply. I see what you mean, what is holding me back from 17-35 f/2.8?

Well, I would be hesitant on spending so much on quite an old design. In fact, I would be hesitant on spending so much full stop. $1k seems to be around my personal limit. I would jump on the 16-35 if it were f/2.8 at $1200 or less i suppose i should have said. (perhaps a bit optimistic). I'm also always a bit wary of buying second hand.

If i got a d700 & 24mm f/2.8, paired with my existing 50mm f/1.4 and 105mm f/2.8 i'd have a pretty high quality, lightweight travel kit, if somewhat impractical with lens changing. I could get AF-S 70-300mm as an option too.

Click to expand...

Sometimes we talk about the 17-35 f/2.8 as being an older design, but it isn't. It's quite modern, if you think about it. It's a professional AFS lens that replaced the 20-35 f/2.8 a few years ago. Nikon has not been making AFS lenses that long for any to be considered an old design. I do agree on the cost and is the reason I went with the 16-35 f/4. I'm also not sure a 17-35 f/2.8 used would save you enough money to pull it into the acceptable range either. I only buy used from KEH where I get a money back guarantee so I can check out a lens and this lens sells for not much less than new there. Again, another advantage for the 16-35 for me. Also, remember the 24 f/2.8 is a much much older design. Any of those older Nikon primes are.

I never mind lens changing as I feel that's an advantage to SLR ownership. It allows us to match the right optic to our needs. It also allows us to put together kits for specific purposes like travel.

I like your budget approach to a 24 f/2.8 and a 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 VR. I think that's a great combination with what you already have. Last September, I did the Grand Tetons with a 35 f/2, 85 f/1.4 and a 70-300 VR as my most used lenses on my D700. I brought along more, but those three got the use. I felt the need for that 24mm and would have been happy with a prime. A couple of guys from Nikon Cafe put up some absolutely beautiful series with that particular prime. Sold me.

I guess you're in the same budget range I was in. I bought the 16-35 f/4 but I think the 24 f/2.8 would be just fine, especially with the savings or ability to also get the telephoto zoom. I think that 70-300 VR performs wonderfully on a D700. I thought it was good on the D300, but marvelled at it on my D700.

Don't worry about feeding your NAS.

--
Cheers, Craig

Equipment in Plan via Profile