Nikon Ultrawide Zooms

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
MoreorLess Veteran Member • Posts: 4,762
Re: Nikon Ultrawide Zooms

VBLondon wrote:

MoreorLess wrote:

The 14-30mm is a retractable design though, extended its pretty much the same length as the 16-35mm.

Yes, to a degree, it's still a bit shorter extended and the 16-35 weighs 40% more (680 vs 485g).

I'm guessing the main issue there is that the 16-35mm being non retractable has a larger eternal body but again it is a decade older as well.

The 12-24mm Z-mount seems like a much more significant weight difference to me in that the design is otherwise pretty similar and again I'm guessing the big issue is a lack of large bulb front element. Maybe the larger Z-mount helps with that? or again could be modern lens tech.

I'd say the biggest issue is likely the Z lenses are much newer and more expensive, the F-mount lenses are both over a decade old and cost a lot less.

Not that much less. The 16-35 is $1100, the 14-30 $1300.

The 16-35mm does seem to have pushed up again recently but of course at this stage you would have no trouble buying it used, that's definitely what I'd do if I were buying these days rather than in 2012.

I would say performance wise the 16-35mm is good at landscape distances BUT needs both stopping down and keeping to a 16-30mm range. In that range the only significant weakness for me is in the extreme corners at 16mm.

It's just too big. I remember when the 16-35 launched, it was bigger than the 17-35 2.8 despite being a stop slower.

The Z14-30 is a real showcase for the Z lenses compared to the 16-35 - optically it's better, it has a more useful range to 14mm, it's much lighter, it's much smaller retracted for travel, the price premium is modest. That doesn't stop the 16-35 from being a good lens for those who have one.

We'll see on the 14-28s. My guess is it will be similar: Z 14-24 is smaller, much lighter (F is 50% heavier at 1000g vs 650g), optically better, doesn't have the vulnerable bulbous front element. Unsurprisingly as a brand new lens it has a meaningful price premium over the 14-24. My guess is for many it would be worth it. I borrowed a F 14-24 and liked the results from it, but never wanted one - too big and cumbersome, the front element felt fragile, I didn't like the lens 'cap' cylinder thing...just too 'specialised' for me.

I'm a fan of the 14-30 simply because in the first months I had it, I took more UWA pictures I liked and kept than in my prior 20 years of F mount use put together. My 17-35 was OK, but I shied away from it because it was fuzzy in corners wide open, with ugly color aberrations. The alternatives were too big (16-35, 14-28), the 18-35 didn't feel wide enough relative to my 20 f2.8D etc.

I wouldn't mind it being a bit smaller but honestly the 16-35mm isn't inconveniently large or heavy for me, now the 14-24mm F-mount lens that was large enough that I felt it would limit my use plus was much harder to mount filters on although also I was never that big a fan of the range, I prefer at least some overlap with normal zooms.

Performance wise it seems like the 16-35mm was optimised for infinity focus where as the 17-35mm and 14-24mm were for close focus so did better on test charts but ultimately the 17-35mm is a design from the 1990's, not really surprising its been surpassed.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow