Lens suggestion for walk around and landscape for D700

[Sebastian Beres]

Hello

I'm looking for little advice. Considering one of two lenses in my next shopping.
Either 16-35 f4 or 24-70 f2.8 as companion do D700.

Lens purpose is walk around and landscape but also thinking about usefulness of 16-35 in wedding photography especially inside churches and outside for big families group photos. (if anyone used 16-35 for weddings and could post samples i would appreciate)

What I don't mind as lens down side

Distortion (can easy fix it in ACR)
Vignetting (same as above, fixable in ACR)

What I'm looking for

Good sharpness and contrast (don't mind bit worse extreme corners since, but they can't be plain horrible), preferably lens to be sharp from widest aperture.

Usefulness also for wedding and wide angle portraits (Here I'm looking more for suggestive opinion and samples if possible)

Focal length which will not suddenly happen to be limiting in landscapes (More question about your personal experience)

The price is also quite important factor for me

What I'm already carrying in bag is

50 f1.4 (portraits and snapshots) and 70-300 4.5-5.6 VR (for outdoor sports or good light condition portraits at 135 - 200 length)

At the end just off topic question about decent backpack to carry all this plus not so light tripod and Macbook Pro 15" (possibly without risk of any pressure on laptop while carrying it).

In advance I apologize for my bad english and thank you for your answers

 

[DPFranz]

Especially for low-light (churches), I would suggest the 17-35 f/2.8 over the 16-35 f/4. Less distortion at 17, and so close in sharpness as to be very difficult to notice. I doubt anyone could reliably tell the difference between two prints at the same aperture and focal length. The 17-35 is a beautiful lens. I own it, as well as the 14-24 and 24-70. I find myself using the 24-70 and the 14-24 more now, but that is mainly because the 14-24 is new, and I'm more interested in seeing what I can do at the ultra-wide. But If I could only have one of the three, I'd choose the 17-35 because it has the most flexibility, going very wide to low-tele.
--
Dana Paul Franz
[email protected]
http://dfranz.smugmug.com

'The moment an emotion or fact is transformed into a photograph it is no longer a fact but an opinion .... All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth.' - Richard Avedon

 

[Robin Casady]

But If I could only have one of the three, I'd choose the 17-35 because it has the most flexibility, going very wide to low-tele.

I have and like the 17-35 with my D700, but when did 35mm become "low-tele" on FX? With 35mm film, and now FX, I've always understood it to be:

Wide:
Normal: 50mm
Tele: > 50mm

--
Robin Casady
http://www.robincasady.com/Photo/index.html

 

[DPFranz]

You're absolutely correct. I guess what I was trying to get at was that the 17-35 is sortof a "long wide." It spans the boundary between the 14-24 and 24-70, so it has a bit of both in it, and for that reason I find it more appealing than either of those as a single lens walkaround solution. But you are right, it's not in the classical tele range.

But If I could only have one of the three, I'd choose the 17-35 because it has the most flexibility, going very wide to low-tele.

I have and like the 17-35 with my D700, but when did 35mm become "low-tele" on FX? With 35mm film, and now FX, I've always understood it to be:

Wide:
Normal: 50mm
Tele: > 50mm

--
Robin Casady
http://www.robincasady.com/Photo/index.html

--
Dana Paul Franz
[email protected]
http://dfranz.smugmug.com

'The moment an emotion or fact is transformed into a photograph it is no longer a fact but an opinion .... All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth.' - Richard Avedon

 

[michaeladawson]

I agree about the 17-35. Great lens. I'd get it over the 16-35 any day. Unless I absolutely needed the 14-17mm range I'd also choose it over the 14-24.

However, given what the OP has listed as his existing lenses it would seem like the 24-70 would be a much better all around choice that would get more use. That is, if you can only buy one lens. Buy a 20mm prime to help extend the wide end?? Don't know.
--
Mike Dawson

 

[Chas B]

have you considered the new 24-120 f/4?

 

[anotherrich]

I am very fond of my AFD 20-35mm f2.8 zoom as a walk around lens If price is important you might want to look for this one (check sites like KEH). I think 20mm is a good limit for full-frame if people are included in the image since wider means more extreme corner distortion, and this lens is very well built (pro-level) and somewhat more compact than the later 17-35 and 16-35 versions. The corners can go soft at 2.8, but the D700 allows the alternative of simply turning up the ISO when light is low. Here are a few shots from a recent trip to Denmark:

















Rich Wilson

 

[xjassa]

17-35mm F2.8 as mentioned, and either an 85mm F1.4 D or G to accompany it.

Then the OP can keep his 50mm F1.4G or sell it.

I used a 50mm F1.4 combo with the 85mm F1.4 all the time, and I hate to say it, but once the 17-35mm F2.8 arrived, the excellent 50mm F1.4G went from my #1 or #2 lens (behind the 85mm F1.4), to sitting in the bag.

 

[Sebastian Beres]

Hello

Thank you very much for your suggestions. They were very helpful in my choice. Especially about focal range. The lens I've choose actually is 16-35/4 mainly because of VR and price compared to 2.8.

It should work nice with my 50/1.4G and (for now, in some time i aim for 70-200/2.8 VR but not now yet) 70-300/4.5-5.6 VR. I've decided to skip focal lengths between 35-50 and 50-70 i can always either crop a bit but later on this will force me to chance lenses what make my photo stories / wedding shoots more interesting than the ones done with only one universal lens.

I've picked it up today before you actually posted your answers because i wanted take it with me for my daughter school event

Link on flicker if you're interested in results. Nothing special it was really crowded over there

http://www.flickr.com/photos/52381099@N03/sets/72157625115784104/with/5060074397/

All in all i was happy with lens performance there. Especially i could achieve dynamic pictures with sharp background and not moving people and motion blurred running kids (you can see it in last photo i just love it)

When I'll find some time for long walk I will post pictures and my opinion about lens.

Once more thanks for your suggestions they were very helpful for me.

 

[calson]

For wedding formals a 24-70mm is a better choice than the 16-35mm. For groups I will be at 24-35mm and for couples I need to zoom in closer than 35mm and do not want to be switching lenses or moving the tripod, Custom Brackets flash bracket is used on a tripod so I can level the Manfrotto 755 tripod and switch back and forth from portrait to landscape mode in seconds.

Landscape shots are made either with 24-35mm (FX) or telephotos so the 24-70 covers that range completely.

On a DX camera the 17-55mm f2.8 would be the best lens for formals.

the 16-35mm f4 is fine for landscape work only but falls short for people photography and at f4 is a bad choice for wedding photography when low light is a given.

 

[G-Xphoto]

Heya,

I'd go for the 24-70 as I own one, and uses it for landscape and wedding as you suggest.

it's is wide enough for group photos at weddings, and wide enough for landscape too.

I don't know if you're coming from DX but remember that 24mm is real 24mm on FX so it's quite wide IMO. At least sufficient.

the zoom up to 70 is also useful in some moments when you want to get something close up and blur the rest around in landscape shooting.

--
my photo page: http://www.xphoto.ch mostly all done with D70

 

[lcagiao]

I have also the D700 + 16-35 f/4 "VR" and that's the key factor. You can easily shoot at 1/10" without suffering trepidation, so when low light I think you are in a better position with the 16-35 (VR provides you 3 steps down) than the 17-35 2.8, but and the end we are splitting hairs with that discussion.

I do more landscapes and urban and with 16-35 f4 and 50 1.4 and quite happy. I'm very keen to see the new 24-120 f4 VR in action as it promises to be a good election. It's a great walkaround and it could make sell my 2 primes 50 1.4 and 85 1.8

For portraits I can still work with the 105 2.8 VR, which is also great.

the 16-35mm f4 is fine for landscape work only but falls short for people photography and at f4 is a bad choice for wedding photography when low light is a given.