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

Started Nov 6, 2012 | Discussions thread
OP A Owens Veteran Member • Posts: 3,126
Re: Bit confused about the 16-35/F4 vs 17-35/F2.8

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.

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

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