24-120mm F4 VR or Canon 24-105 F4L

Started Dec 30, 2012 | Discussions thread
BobVell Regular Member • Posts: 217
Re: 24-120mm F4 VR or Canon 24-105 F4L

Dr Bob wrote:

A question though to BobVell and jmiller, you both mention the 16-35 F4. Is that an option I should be looking at? I would need something for the longer FL and the 16-35 is nearly the same price as the 24-120 so that starts to blow the budget and move me back towards the D600. Is the 16-35 a good Landscape lens - an “ultimate” lens rather than a “compromise” as per Nikonwatcher's measure?

I got the 16-36 f/4 VR because I wasn't happy with any of the other wide options. The 28 f/1.8 g is excellent, but not wide enough. The 14-24 doesn't take filters, and neither (at the other end of the price spectrum) does the Rokinon/Bower/Samyang 14mm. The Ziess 21mm is a strong candidate, but only for 21mm! The Nikon 24 f/1.4 costs more than several cars that I've owned!

That left the 17-35 and 16-35. That's a close call, but for my purposes, 16-35 is better.  It has some issues (what lens, especially a WA, doesn't?). The biggest is distortion at 16mm, but that is relatively easy to correct (unless your main subject is architecture). As a bonus, the 16-35 takes 77mm filters, the same size as the 24-120 (I'm playing around with ND filters).

Several well-regarded reviewers have heaped praise on it (e.g., http://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-16-35mm-f4g-vr) and my experience coincides with that. I would not call it the ultimate landscape lens, but I also wouldn't call it a compromise. How high you rate it depends on what focal length you prefer, and what your primary subject matter is. I am particularly pleased with both the 24-120 and 16-35.

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