UWA rediculousness

Started Mar 17, 2012 | Discussions
dnercesian Contributing Member • Posts: 560
UWA rediculousness

There is no wide zoom solution for me. I just have to realize that I guess. I am being far to picky for sure, and I have nobody to blame but myself. So I guess the point of this is to see if my uber control freak OCD is common or at least shared with anyone else, or if I have an isolated case of the "boohoo Nikon, give me everything I want exactly how I want it!"

I shoot on a pair of D3's, which will soon be a pair of D4's. I never remove my lenses unless I am cleaning a sensor. I like it that way because it is fast, suits my laziness, and because it keeps me from collecting all kinds of lenses I won't use. One of my bodies is dedicated to the 70-200VR2, but it is the other one I argue with myself over constantly.

Here's how it started. I loved my old 17-35, but couldn't help myself when it came to the 14-24. Reluctantly, I made the switch. The 14-24, as we all know, is just plain awesome. After using it for a while, I missed the 35mm focal length for some of my more intimate people shots and decided to go back to the 17-35. I was in focal length heaven again, but sure enough, I missed the IQ and the 14mm. What did I do you ask? I switched back to the 14-24!

This craziness must end, and I am afraid I may one day break my 2 lens rule. Since there is no 14mm prime that stands up to the zoom, I suppose the 14-24 is a keeper. What to do next is the problem for me. So, besides wanting to know if I am the only wing nut haunted by this dilemma, could you also give me your opinions on the following for a possible, dare I say it, 3rd lens? I hate myself already.

1) 35mm 1.4G - Love the images, hate the lack of versatility. Makes me feel like I'll be switching a lot.

2) 24-70 2.8 - Great images, but 35-70 bores me, so I am likely to waste that portion of the lens, its another honker of a lens to carry, I'll still have to switch when I want anything in the UWA range, and I will drown myself in a bathtub when the first person says, "oh, you got the trinity".

3) 16-35 VR - Will I miss 2.8 DOF? Another big honker. Great focal range though, and I can deal with the mad distortion if I have to zoom out to UWA in a pinch.

4) 17-35 (old faithful) - Giving up a little IQ, but have the 2.8, great build, great focal range, and that comfort level you have when, you know, you've already been there...

5) Urinate in the gas tank of every Nikon executive's cars until they make me a superb 14-35. While they are at it, they can make it a 12-35, throw in VR, and do my laundry.

If you've had the patience to read this silliness all the way through, I hope you've laughed along the way.

Nikon D3 Nikon D4
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
ranamo Contributing Member • Posts: 999
Re: UWA rediculousness

If you are serious you are an idiot; if you are joking you are not funny.

Goodlight
Ranamo

chris_uk
chris_uk Contributing Member • Posts: 761
Re: UWA rediculousness

Just buy another D4 body and put a 24 - 70 on it.

martinimagery Regular Member • Posts: 193
Re: UWA rediculousness

"Carl Zeiss creates Distagon T* 15mm F2.8 super wide angle lens"

I think Zeiss just answered your question on no 14mm prime standing up to the 14-24 zoom; of course it's a 15mm lens but I'm fairly sure it will be REALLY good.

So, break your 2 lens rule, get the next 15mm prime for wide-angle and go back to your 17-35 zoom focal length heaven; but if it were me, I would go with the 35 f1.4 and just use the 2 primes and the 70-200 zoom; well actually, I wouldn't use the 70-200 zoom, I'd switch it out for two primes (an 85mm f1.4 and 180 f2.8) but then I like prime shooting.

regards,
Martin

SNRatio Regular Member • Posts: 476
Create an "Update the 17-35" campaign

The 17-35 has long been ripe for an update, but I doubt you'll be most effective in promoting it going the renal route you suggest

I think it becomes even more urgent now with the D800 - seems to me that even the 14-24 can't completely cope with that sensor, far less so the aging 17-35.

And of course you will have to break your two-lens rule, it clearly doesn't work for you today either. And if the zooms can do all you need, maybe it'll never be prime time for you:)

pixelless Contributing Member • Posts: 612
Re: Create an "Update the 17-35" campaign

Just get an extra D4 and use it with a 35/1.4! What do you rather do... change lenses or carry an extra body?!

ranamo Contributing Member • Posts: 999
Re: Create an "Update the 17-35" campaign

And why do you clean your sensor if you never remove the lenses ????????

Goodlight
Ranamo

Gazphotos Regular Member • Posts: 140
Re: Create an "Update the 17-35" campaign

Geez, I don't see the issue here. 14-24 and a 24-70, it doesn't get any better than this. what is with all the people who complain about the size and weight, are these people wimpy or what? they're not that heavy for crying out loud!

OP dnercesian Contributing Member • Posts: 560
Re: UWA rediculousness

Ranamo, try not to be a tool mate. And while I rarely have to clean a sensor, it still happens from time to time. I make a living with my gear, so it sees a lot of use.

I really like the new 15mm, but no way am I paying 3K for one. That is just absurd to me considering the existence of the 14-24. I secretly harbor ill will and hope that lens doesn't sell well, just because I am disgusted by the pricing. Oops, guess it's not a secret anymore. Honestly, I still think it will do well with cinema guys and gear heads with loads of expendable cash.

A 3rd body is not an option. Not that I don't love the idea, but I just figured out the best way to deploy my 2 body combo. I am not going back to the drawing board any time soon. Plus, then I'd really complain about carrying too much gear. I love the all primes route, but this is the same reason I would never consider it. Really do like primes though.

If Nikon would reboot the 17-35, maybe a 16-35 2.8, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I agree though that my suggested approach would likely not work. It would actually more than likely cause Nikon to do something stupid in retaliation, like a 70-200 f/4. Why Nikon?

Pixelless - Now that is the question of the year for me. Which would bother me more? I'm going to lose sleep over that one.

The 24-70 seems like a good bang for the buck actually, simply because I am not overlapping focal lengths, although I have never used the 35-70 focal lengths, so I don't know if I't would be worth it for me, and I'd have to switch lenses and perhaps lose a shot if I needed ultra wide in a pinch.

Oh well.

SNRatio Regular Member • Posts: 476
Re: UWA rediculousness

dnercesian wrote:

If Nikon would reboot the 17-35, maybe a 16-35 2.8, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I agree though that my suggested approach would likely not work. It would actually more than likely cause Nikon to do something stupid in retaliation, like a 70-200 f/4. Why Nikon?

Good. So when stupidity comes to reign, as it surely will, you can safely say "It wasn't me".

The 24-70 seems like a good bang for the buck actually, simply because I am not overlapping focal lengths, although I have never used the 35-70 focal lengths, so I don't know if I't would be worth it for me, and I'd have to switch lenses and perhaps lose a shot if I needed ultra wide in a pinch.

You could also use a D800 for such situations, employing varying degrees of crop mode with the 14-24. Going all the way down to 16MP DX, you would have a 21-35/2.8. At least a more discreet way of employing something DX than a D5100 with a Tokina 11-16 protruding from your back, banging into the wall as you try to back up and fit everything needed into that darned 24mm frame of the 24-70. But the 24-70 will provide way more exercise for you, whether you want and need it or not. Maybe you could get it as a prescription?

OP dnercesian Contributing Member • Posts: 560
Re: UWA rediculousness

I like your style.

2 problems though. I need the pro body, and the speed, so no 800 for me unless I can convince my wife to agree to me having a dedicated recreational camera in addition to my work kit. The second issue is the backing up with the 24mm to get it all in. Getting it all in is not the issue most of the time. More of a perspective thing I like on certain photos.

Just ignore my distaste for the 70-200 f4. I'm bitter that it will likely get the nod prior to a much more necessary (in my opinion) 17-35.

SNRatio wrote:

dnercesian wrote:

If Nikon would reboot the 17-35, maybe a 16-35 2.8, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I agree though that my suggested approach would likely not work. It would actually more than likely cause Nikon to do something stupid in retaliation, like a 70-200 f/4. Why Nikon?

Good. So when stupidity comes to reign, as it surely will, you can safely say "It wasn't me".

The 24-70 seems like a good bang for the buck actually, simply because I am not overlapping focal lengths, although I have never used the 35-70 focal lengths, so I don't know if I't would be worth it for me, and I'd have to switch lenses and perhaps lose a shot if I needed ultra wide in a pinch.

You could also use a D800 for such situations, employing varying degrees of crop mode with the 14-24. Going all the way down to 16MP DX, you would have a 21-35/2.8. At least a more discreet way of employing something DX than a D5100 with a Tokina 11-16 protruding from your back, banging into the wall as you try to back up and fit everything needed into that darned 24mm frame of the 24-70. But the 24-70 will provide way more exercise for you, whether you want and need it or not. Maybe you could get it as a prescription?

Catallaxy Veteran Member • Posts: 3,724
Renting is an option

Rent the lens.

You are about to buy two D4 bodies, so you obviously have the cash. Rent the 16-35 f/4 VR for about two or three weeks to see if you like it.

Either that, or buy it outright, use it for a month or two and sell it. They are in high demand and you should lose no more than 20-30% of the purchase price. If fleabay is too much bother, Keh.com, Adorama and B&H will buy it from you for about 60-70% of the retail value.

I am not a UWA shooter, so I cannot give you any specific advice on the lenses (IQ, etc.). For me, the 24mm on my 24-70 is my WA.

I use the 24-70 and 70-200 VRII for events. Occasionally I will bring out my 55 f/3.5 (AI'ed) for closeups or my 105 f/2.5 AI for a posed portrait, but the two lens combo does well for me. AF speed and AF reliability mean a lot to me for events and those two lenses have it in spades.

Good luck!

-- hide signature --

Catallaxy

whoosh1 Senior Member • Posts: 1,573
Get a D800 to make your 14-24 effectively 14-36 equiv

Instead of updating to 2 D4 - update to a D4 and a D800.

Use from 14-24 in the FX mode and then if need more at 24mm use 1.2x crop for roughly 30mm equivalent and 1.5x crop for 36mm equivalent.

Keep the 70-200mm on your D4.

 whoosh1's gear list:whoosh1's gear list
Nikon D800E Nikon D810 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm F4G ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G ED +12 more
SNRatio Regular Member • Posts: 476
Re: UWA rediculousness

dnercesian wrote:

2 problems though. I need the pro body, and the speed, so no 800 for me unless I can convince my wife to agree to me having a dedicated recreational camera in addition to my work kit. The second issue is the backing up with the 24mm to get it all in. Getting it all in is not the issue most of the time. More of a perspective thing I like on certain photos.

I would have tried with the 24-70, then. Switching to the 14-24 only when needed. For avoiding dangerous situations in the home, still you might get a contribution from health insurance? I think the perspective thing is one of the important reasons i love the 17-35 so much. (Plus, it's relatively distortion-free and uniform around 24mm, where I use it most.)

Just ignore my distaste for the 70-200 f4. I'm bitter that it will likely get the nod prior to a much more necessary (in my opinion) 17-35.

Being the naive things we are, we might nourish some hopes that the D800 sensor will expose the 17-35's weaknesses to a much larger, more audible and (in totality) bigger spending audience than the D3X ever could? I think it is arguably much more necessary than a 70-200/4: You have several ways to get about the same performance as a 70-200/4, its rationale is mostly about handling. But, as is evident from this discussion, there is currently no substitute for an upgraded 17-35.

Joe P Doyle Regular Member • Posts: 428
Re: UWA rediculousness

4) 17-35 (old faithful) - Giving up a little IQ, but have the 2.8, great build, great focal range, and that comfort level you have when, you know, you've already been there...

5) Urinate in the gas tank of every Nikon executive's cars until they make me a superb 14-35. While they are at it, they can make it a 12-35, throw in VR, and do my laundry.

4 and 5

This is exactly what i did, it's really annoying either way. The 14-24 is stellar but i need up-to 35mm, the 17-35 is not so hot at 17mm, but great from 20mm onwards.
Filters argh....

Had the 24-70 not impressed with the two copies i had at the 24mm end.

So in the end settled back to 17-35, which may or may not get an upgrade in the future to Nano etc.

Good luck with the OCD, I'm happy to be back with my workhorse lens that almost does it all

Now just need to stop lusting over 24 1.4
--
Joe
http://www.pbase.com/joed
http://www.jofoto.co.uk
Wedding Photographer

slimandy Forum Pro • Posts: 17,071
Re: UWA rediculousness

I tried the 14~24, 17~35 and 16~35 and I preferred the 17~35. I preferred the focal length and the filter thread to the 14~24 (weight too), and I just preferred the IQ, build and extra stop to the 16~35.

That said you clearly love the 14~24 and I can appreciate why. Do you still own the 17~35? If so just use both. If not I think I'd opt for the 35mm f1,4. It will be a much better lens than the 17~35 is @ 35mm, is faster, better wide open anyway and is more compact. That seems to give you the best option given that you will continue with the 14~24.

Or, a 17~35mm and a Zeiss 15mm f2.8. That would be my dream solution, but only if I win the lottery first.
--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

 slimandy's gear list:slimandy's gear list
Sony RX100 II Nikon D200 Nikon D700 Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm X-T1
Windancer
Windancer Veteran Member • Posts: 5,477
Re: UWA rediculousness

dnercesian wrote:

Just ignore my distaste for the 70-200 f4. I'm bitter that it will likely get the nod prior to a much more necessary (in my opinion) 17-35.

I know I am coming in quite late but I owned a 70-210/4, granted it was slow to focus but considering it was one of the original AF lens it performed quite well and IMO it was a fine lens see the thread I created:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=40917033

I also own a 17-35 lens, and am very happy with it, just curious what would you like to see updated on this lens? Personally as I have said many times I'm not a VR user, so in my case it wouldn't affect me personally but it may for you, which I understand.

Terry

-- hide signature --

Graham Fine Art Photography
http://www.pbase.com/windancer
http://gallery.reginaphotoclub.com/TGraham

Remember, it's not the CPU that's in your camera that makes great images, it's the one located about 4" behind the viewfinder that does.

Disclaimer: This e-mail is intended to impart a sense of humor. Given e-mail's inability to carry inflections, tone and facial expressions it may fail miserably in its intent. The sender acknowledges the limitations of the technology and assigns to the software in which this message was composed any ill feelings that may arise.

 Windancer's gear list:Windancer's gear list
Nikon D70 Nikon D100 Nikon D200 Nikon D300 Nikon D700 +21 more
OP dnercesian Contributing Member • Posts: 560
Re: UWA rediculousness

Glad to know I am not the only one with the affliction. After much consideration, I think I am nearing a decision. While inconvenient, I think I will keep the 14-24, basically as a gigantic 14mm prime, and go ahead and buy another 17-35. I will most likely have the 17-35 on that particular body 95% of the time, and just feel warm and fuzzy knowing the 14mm is there if I need it.

I don't care too much about VR in this focal range, though I will be thrilled if a reboot comes out with it. Mostly I would just like to see all the new lens technology applied here. The 17-35 is definitely old, but it is hard to pick on anything specific because it does everything really well, just not up to par with what they could do with it today. I'd also like to see them make it a 16-35 2.8.

SNRatio Regular Member • Posts: 476
Re: UWA rediculousness

dnercesian wrote:

Glad to know I am not the only one with the affliction. After much consideration, I think I am nearing a decision. While inconvenient, I think I will keep the 14-24, basically as a gigantic 14mm prime, and go ahead and buy another 17-35. I will most likely have the 17-35 on that particular body 95% of the time, and just feel warm and fuzzy knowing the 14mm is there if I need it.

I don't care too much about VR in this focal range, though I will be thrilled if a reboot comes out with it. Mostly I would just like to see all the new lens technology applied here. The 17-35 is definitely old, but it is hard to pick on anything specific because it does everything really well, just not up to par with what they could do with it today. I'd also like to see them make it a 16-35 2.8.

Sounds like a good short term plan to me. In some half-weird sense, the 14-24 and the 17-35 are complementary, and whenever the 17-35 is not quite up to the situation, it's a fair chance the 14-24 will be it more. To me, the main weakness of the 17-35 is its unevenness - along most dimensions. From crappy edges to outresolving the 12MP sensor all over, comfortably. I'd really like the update to be 15-35 or 16-35. But please no VR, if there is the slightest chance that will make the centering problems even worse.

OP dnercesian Contributing Member • Posts: 560
Re: UWA rediculousness

SNRatio wrote:

dnercesian wrote:

Glad to know I am not the only one with the affliction. After much consideration, I think I am nearing a decision. While inconvenient, I think I will keep the 14-24, basically as a gigantic 14mm prime, and go ahead and buy another 17-35. I will most likely have the 17-35 on that particular body 95% of the time, and just feel warm and fuzzy knowing the 14mm is there if I need it.

I don't care too much about VR in this focal range, though I will be thrilled if a reboot comes out with it. Mostly I would just like to see all the new lens technology applied here. The 17-35 is definitely old, but it is hard to pick on anything specific because it does everything really well, just not up to par with what they could do with it today. I'd also like to see them make it a 16-35 2.8.

Sounds like a good short term plan to me. In some half-weird sense, the 14-24 and the 17-35 are complementary, and whenever the 17-35 is not quite up to the situation, it's a fair chance the 14-24 will be it more. To me, the main weakness of the 17-35 is its unevenness - along most dimensions. From crappy edges to outresolving the 12MP sensor all over, comfortably. I'd really like the update to be 15-35 or 16-35. But please no VR, if there is the slightest chance that will make the centering problems even worse.

I second the 15-35 suggestion if Nikon can pull it off clean. If that happened, I could skip 14 entirely. You are right, in my case, that the 14-24 and the 17-35 compliment each other well, especially since I am using the 14-24 as an oversized 14mm prime anyway.

See, there is another option. Reboot the 14mm prime to have the IQ that the 14-24 has. That would work for me along with the 17-35 and be smaller to carry.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads