20mm 1.8G or 16-35mm f4 VR

I went with the 18-35mm and absolutely love the weight, coverage and image quality. If in low light, I either boost the ISO or use the 35mm 1.8. Also picked up a Sigma 15mm for when I want UWA.

Richard

After much thought just ordered the 18-35mm now - due with me Friday. All I hope for now is an end the the constant rain and dull grey skies so I can get out and have a play with it!

SUFTUM said:

After much thought just ordered the 18-35mm now - due with me Friday. All I hope for now is an end the the constant rain and dull grey skies so I can get out and have a play with it!

Click to expand...

Good choice. Enjoy!

SUFTUM said:

After much thought just ordered the 18-35mm now - due with me Friday. All I hope for now is an end the the constant rain and dull grey skies so I can get out and have a play with it!

Click to expand...

Hello,

I was a proud and happy owner of the 16-35 for 2+ years and I was very happy with it. 16mm is really great when you're inside a cathedral or a museum, or obviously for landscapes. But I decided to sell it because I wanted something sharper (for landscapes) and faster (for stars and aurora type situations). The 20mm on a D610 (that I own) blows away the 16-35 in terms of sharpness as per DXO.

I don't really think anything that goes up to 35mm has enough reach for general walkaround purposes (I used to use my 16-35 along with a 50 f1.8 for travel till I was done continuously switching lens and not having enough reach on the wide and not enough flexibility on the prime, and decided to invest in a 24-70 - non VR. Great decision in my personal experience).

Anyway, the 18-35 is a great lens by all accounts so I'm sure you'll have fun!

Neither lens is practical as a singe lens solution for a trip to Paris - just too wide. If weight is an issue, I would combine this with a 24-85G, which has VR and is pretty close to the 24-120 for most purposes. With the 20 1.8 (or 18-35) you have a pretty light kit.

The Nikon 18-35mm F3.5G is a sharper lens than the 16-35mm and lighter and less expensive. It is what I use when not wanting the weight of the 14-24mm f2.8 lens.

calson said:

The Nikon 18-35mm F3.5G is a sharper lens than the 16-35mm and lighter and less expensive. It is what I use when not wanting the weight of the 14-24mm f2.8 lens.

--
George Carlin “The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it."

Click to expand...

I find the 16-35mm f/4 plenty sharp. IMO the 16-35mm has it's advantages over the 18-35mm G as mentioned above. The 16-35 needs to be stopped down a bit to deliver best IQ, but thats usually desireble for my use.

--
Regards 9ck

Despite some bad reviews of the 16-35, I find it a very good and sharp lens. The prime is good for some purposes, but if you want flexibility, go for the zoom.