Camera Labs

I use a AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR on my camera, but recently I was talking to someone who uses a Canon EF 24-105mm on their 5D.

So it got me thinking should I replace the 16-35 with a Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED VR.

Would I notice much of a difference losing 8mm, or is it more complicated than this?

_________________
Nikon D700, Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED

Future purchases: Nikkor 24-70, 70-200 f/2.8G ED & AF Fisheye 16mm f/2.8D

It depends what you shoot. If you like wide, you would notice the difference.

I assume that you want the 24-120 because it has more reach, and it has a good spread of focal lengths.

Why not have both? There's some overlap, but not much. Have the 24-120 as the main lens and use the 16-35 when you want to go wide.

_________________
HCC
Nikon DSLRs, film cameras from Leica to Linhof

Your camera is an important factor! 24mm is not a very wide-angle starting point for a lens on a cropped-frame camera body. With the 1.5 crop factor, the image "seen" at 16mm on cropped-frame is equivalent to 24mm on full-frame. Indoors, where there may not be much room to step farther from a subject such as a group of people. This may prove to be quite limiting. Of course, 35mm on the long end of the zoom range is also a limitation.

I should note that I own neither lens; most of my zoom lenses are Canon. I have tested a demonstrator 16-35mm Nikkor at a large local camera store, as this lens happened to be affixed, at the time, to a Nikon camera I wanted to see, and found it VERY good, for the brief period I handled it, which prompted me to do some research on-line. This lens has a very good reputation among reviewers.

If feasible, one can rent/hire/borrow a lens that is under consideration.

_________________
Canon 7D/5D/40D/1D2N; Nikon F6, FM3A, & Coolpix A; Canon 40mm Pancake, 135L, 50L, 35L, pre-II 50mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8L Macro, 10-22mm EF-S, 28-135 EF, 400mm 5.6L; Nikkor 50mm 1.2 AI-S, 50mm 1.4G, 50mm 1.8D, 16mm 2.8D Fisheye, 180mm 2.8D, 100-300mm 5.6 AI-S; Tokina 17mm & 100mm 2.8 Macro

It depends what you shoot. If you like wide, you would notice the difference.

I assume that you want the 24-120 because it has more reach, and it has a good spread of focal lengths.

Why not have both? There's some overlap, but not much. Have the 24-120 as the main lens and use the 16-35 when you want to go wide.

Hi HilaryC,

Yes more reach, and spread, that would be pretty much perfect. Also price is a big factor, when I moved up to full frame I paid just shy of $2`400 for my D700 & $1`600 for the 16-35 in July last year, glass as you doubtless know in full frame is expensive. So I wouldn`t want to put more money into a lense only to find it isn`t really what I needed, eBay is littered with lenses that people don`t use for many reasons, I don`t want to end up in the same position.

If a 24-120 worked for me, then I could upgrade and financially the cost to change over might be small; I can come out sweet selling on this fairly new lense with the balance of warranty at almost 18 months ending up with the 24-120.

My main interest is architecture & landscape. Outside of this, in the future I might be doing weddings (but the other people I would be shooting with already have Canon cameras with 24-105, 70-200 & 50mm prime lenses.

So I am not even sure if I would need this 16-35.

Freelance doing real estate/realty photography is a strong possiblity for me to, I thought if I could get decent shots of inside rooms, halls etc using a 24-120 it would be great.

_________________
Nikon D700, Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED

Future purchases: Nikkor 24-70, 70-200 f/2.8G ED & AF Fisheye 16mm f/2.8D

Your camera is an important factor! 24mm is not a very wide-angle starting point for a lens on a cropped-frame camera body. With the 1.5 crop factor, the image "seen" at 16mm on cropped-frame is equivalent to 24mm on full-frame. Indoors, where there may not be much room to step farther from a subject such as a group of people. This may prove to be quite limiting. Of course, 35mm on the long end of the zoom range is also a limitation.

I should note that I own neither lens; most of my zoom lenses are Canon. I have tested a demonstrator 16-35mm Nikkor at a large local camera store, as this lens happened to be affixed, at the time, to a Nikon camera I wanted to see, and found it VERY good, for the brief period I handled it, which prompted me to do some research on-line. This lens has a very good reputation among reviewers.

If feasible, one can rent/hire/borrow a lens that is under consideration.

Hi RexGig

Yes that is true, I use a Nikon D700. I tried a DX lense which was cheaper at the shop during purchase, but compared to the 16-35 it was really bad I thought, and the difference in price was not that big.

Trying out the 16-35 inside the shop, well it practically took in the whole room. I never really wanted the DX lense but the sales guy said it was an option given the price and to try it out. I love the 16-35, the build quality, everything just seems so good.

What way do you find 35 limiting, in terms of image quality?

Thats a good point I never thought of renting etc.

_________________
Nikon D700, Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED

Future purchases: Nikkor 24-70, 70-200 f/2.8G ED & AF Fisheye 16mm f/2.8D

Hi Colin.
For landscape & especially real estate/inside buildings, I think you'll really miss the wide end, but only you can decide I suppose.

_________________

Nikon D700 & D7100 bodies + Nikkor 300mm F2.8 VR11, 1.7TC, 50mm F1.4G, 16-35mm f/4G VR, 105 F2.8 VR macro, 70-300mm lenses. A couple of filters, Giotto tripod & ballhead. Lowepro Slingshot 302 AW

http://www.flickr.com/photos/oldcarlos/

Hi oldCarlos, yeah its a bit of a cunundrum it seems, think i`ll look at hiring one and go out for a day or two to see whats its like, compare some shots against each lense.

_________________
Nikon D700, Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED

Future purchases: Nikkor 24-70, 70-200 f/2.8G ED & AF Fisheye 16mm f/2.8D

Dear Mr Bell

For real estate and architecture, keep the 16-35!

You have other interesting alternatives, for example, an 85/1.8. This is not terribly expensive and gives you an excellent portraiture/short telephoto lens. Excellent optical quality, suitable for weddings and when you want to get in a bit closer. It's also good for low light (though not stabilised). Hopefully, you could just add this to your 16-35 for a very versatile combination.

There are other alternatives, depending on your preferences - this is just a suggestion to get things going.

_________________
HCC
Nikon DSLRs, film cameras from Leica to Linhof

HilaryC,

Much appreciated. Well I took a quick look at some reviews from buyers on B&H photo about that lense, and I also have had this review (link below) for quite a while. This guy here had an 85 1.8, but prefers a 105 F 2.8 VR, the longer reach being more important to him, there was also bokesh he thought was better on the 105. Interestingly the guy I know who does weddings, as I said in the start of this thread uses a 105 on his Canon.

The alternatives you mention, any specific sizes?

This review is worth a look; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYocydZ ... pgrvrf1dZg

_________________
Nikon D700, Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED

Future purchases: Nikkor 24-70, 70-200 f/2.8G ED & AF Fisheye 16mm f/2.8D

Well, I do not shoot normal architecture, but do shoot crime scene images, which includes overall images of interiors and exteriors. My zoom is a Canon 10-22mm, which I use regularly; it virtually lives on one of my 7D cameras. Its equivalent on FF is 16-35mm, and if I were to use a FF DSLR for crime scenes, I would probably want a 16-35mm lens.

If I decide to start purchasing Nikkor zoom lenses, to use on my 35mm F6, the 16-35mm may well be the first acquisition.

_________________
Canon 7D/5D/40D/1D2N; Nikon F6, FM3A, & Coolpix A; Canon 40mm Pancake, 135L, 50L, 35L, pre-II 50mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8L Macro, 10-22mm EF-S, 28-135 EF, 400mm 5.6L; Nikkor 50mm 1.2 AI-S, 50mm 1.4G, 50mm 1.8D, 16mm 2.8D Fisheye, 180mm 2.8D, 100-300mm 5.6 AI-S; Tokina 17mm & 100mm 2.8 Macro

Hi RexGig,

Ah well it makes perfect sense to keep my 16-35 then. Thanks for your help really appreciate this

_________________
Nikon D700, Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED

Future purchases: Nikkor 24-70, 70-200 f/2.8G ED & AF Fisheye 16mm f/2.8D

Just to update this thread for anyone who was interested in it. I sold the 16-35, and bought a 14-24 f/2.8G today. I'll probably go for a 24-70 eventually if I need one, and the 70-200. Thanks for your comments about this matter, appreciated.

_________________
Nikon D700, Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED

Future purchases: Nikkor 24-70, 70-200 f/2.8G ED & AF Fisheye 16mm f/2.8D

Very nice upgrade

The holy trinity eh

Let us know how you get on with the 14-24 & if it lives up to expectations.

_________________

Nikon D700 & D7100 bodies + Nikkor 300mm F2.8 VR11, 1.7TC, 50mm F1.4G, 16-35mm f/4G VR, 105 F2.8 VR macro, 70-300mm lenses. A couple of filters, Giotto tripod & ballhead. Lowepro Slingshot 302 AW

http://www.flickr.com/photos/oldcarlos/

Hi, yeah I know!

Well when Gordon said it made others weep with envy, I figured it would do

Will be interesting to see if I have made the right choice!

_________________
Nikon D700, Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED

Future purchases: Nikkor 24-70, 70-200 f/2.8G ED & AF Fisheye 16mm f/2.8D

Congratulations on your purchase Mr. Bell. I hope to see some photos from you with your new lens.

_________________
Camera: Nikon D60
Lenses: Nikon AF-S DX 18-55 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR, Nikon AF-S VR 70-300 f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED
Flash: Nikon SB-910
Tripod: Joby Gorillapod Focus with Ball Head X, Manfrotto 055CXPRO4 with Manfrotto MH054M0-Q5 ballhead

Flickr