Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Thu Jul 31, 2014 12:38 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 7:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 11:40 am
Posts: 55
Location: Northern Ireland
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?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 13, 2013 10:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 10:41 pm
Posts: 365
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2013 2:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 11:55 pm
Posts: 877
Location: SE Texas
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, D700, FM3A, & Coolpix A; Canon 40mm 2.8 STM, 135L, 50L, 35L, 50mm 1.8 I, 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, 18mm 2.8D, Voigtlander 90mm f/3.5 SL II


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2013 3:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 11:40 am
Posts: 55
Location: Northern Ireland
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.


Last edited by Mr.Bell on Mon Jan 14, 2013 4:23 am, edited 5 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2013 3:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 11:40 am
Posts: 55
Location: Northern Ireland
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 7:01 pm
Posts: 1225
Location: NW England
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.

_________________
Image btw,He who dies with the most toys, WINS!
Nikon D800E & D700 bodies + Nikon 200-400mm F4 VR1, 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
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2013 11:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 11:40 am
Posts: 55
Location: Northern Ireland
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2013 10:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 10:41 pm
Posts: 365
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 8:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 11:40 am
Posts: 55
Location: Northern Ireland
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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 11:55 pm
Posts: 877
Location: SE Texas
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, D700, FM3A, & Coolpix A; Canon 40mm 2.8 STM, 135L, 50L, 35L, 50mm 1.8 I, 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, 18mm 2.8D, Voigtlander 90mm f/3.5 SL II


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 3:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 11:40 am
Posts: 55
Location: Northern Ireland
Hi RexGig,

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 1:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 11:40 am
Posts: 55
Location: Northern Ireland
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 28, 2013 8:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 13, 2010 7:01 pm
Posts: 1225
Location: NW England
Very nice upgrade 8)

The holy trinity eh :wink:

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

_________________
Image btw,He who dies with the most toys, WINS!
Nikon D800E & D700 bodies + Nikon 200-400mm F4 VR1, 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
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 12:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 11:40 am
Posts: 55
Location: Northern Ireland
Hi, yeah I know!

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

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 10:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 141
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


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group