it is a pro quality fast Wide angle len. With a d7000 you would probably be better served by a 17-55mm. If you plan on going full frame any time soon then the 17-35 is better, the 17-55 is DX only. if full frame is in your future the 24-70 might be a better option. As for uses event photography, news or landscape would be well served by a fast lens in this range. Hope that sheds a little light.
I would agree with this. As the 17-55 f/2.8 would be a wider focal length and cheaper option for a DX shooter. Now if FX is in your future, then the 24-70 would be/is a great lens. Also consider the 24-120 f/4 VR as it is at a similar price as the 17-55 f/2.8 but would cover DX and FX and is said to be a great lens, one I would like to add to my collection one day.
Sat 23-Mar-13 04:13 PM | edited Sat 23-Mar-13 04:14 PM by nwcs
It's great for landscapes (intimate and vistas), closeup photos (depending upon subject matter), group shots, street shots, basic architecture/building shots.
I had a 17-35 for a while. Personally I'd go with the 16-35 with a modern DSLR. But if you're sticking with the D7000 (or DX cameras) consider the Nikon 12-24 f/4 or the Nikon 10-24. Much cheaper and really fast and wide on a DX camera.
The 16-35 f/4 VR is a very good alternative to the 17-35. The 16-35 is a newer design with very good image quality and the addition of VR. And the price is much less than the 17-35. F/2.8 is rarely critical in an ultrawide.
I don't think the 24-70 is the best choice for DX. I found it was rarely wide enough, so a 10-24 or 12-24 type focal length was very important. You might be able to live with a 16mm wide end, but not 24mm.
The 17-55 is a good lens, but it is limited to DX and not better than the 16-35. Its a matter of the importance of the 35-55 range or the 35-70 range depending on your choices.
The 70-200 is a very nice lens and a good focal length on both FX and DX. It's worth a look if you a building a high quality kit.
A 16-35 and 70-200 can be paired with a 50mm f/1.8 for a nice kit that works on DX and FX.
For interior images, I can handhold acceptably at 1/4-1/8 sec using the 16-35 because of VR. If you need to stop subject motion, ISO is your first defense. The faster lens options are going to be primes like the 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm f/1.4 and 1.8 lenses.
Thanks, Eric. I have to hit myself on the head. My photo thinking is rooted in 35mm film. Thus I usually avoided 400 asa film --- bad grain. And now with my D7000 and 16-85, I really haven't examined what VR can do. Not closely. I know I am pretty steady hand-held down to 1/30.
But I really should shoot a bunch of stuff slower and then magnify the images on screen to see if I can detect any blur.
My 3 other lenses don't have VR. A 12-24, 60mm G, and an 80-200 AF. I usually have the last one on a tripod. Your remarks really open up a whole avenue I've never explored. If f4 coupled with VR really performs at 1/4 and 1/8, hey, then that is the magic bullet. I sure like the idea of spending $1000 less for almost the same focal length lens. And the 16mm end of it really makes me want to buy one.
Used would be good enough for me, so I'll start trolling the WTS forum here on Nikonians, and eBay. You made me a happy man.
That price was a scribbled note I wrote on the Nikkor lens catalog. It couldn't have been a rebate offer. So, it might have been a price I came across on C/L or eBay. Whether or not it was a "sold" price, or just an opening auction is only a guess.
Sun 24-Mar-13 01:36 AM | edited Sun 24-Mar-13 01:38 AM by PSAGuy
Outstanding quality 17-35 f2.8 lenses can be found all over for around a grand used. This is a terrific lens and built to withstand the rigors of the field. It is built a lot like the 28-70 lens known as "The Beast" in many circles. I've used it for panorama shots in dark gyms as well as landscapes etc. The f2.8 capability is not used much for landscapes.....I'll give you that. But having that ability to function in low light is nice . The 16-85 is indeed a sharp lens but build quality is different, as is it's ability to function in lower light. Like a lot....it really depends on how you'll use the tool.
When I shot DX the 12-24 was my go to lens but it crops like an 18-36 on FX. So when I moved to a D700 I bought the 17-35 and never looked back. This has become my main travel lens and my gallery is full of 17-35 images. When I bought mine it cost a bit less, but it is worth every penny. I don't have any at f/2.8, but here is one at f/4.
OK. If I were to get either one of these lenses, what is the gain over the 16-85vr or 12-24 which I already have?
One of you folks assert the 2.8 isn't needed due to the VR feature. And most people know that the optics on the 16-85 are at the top of the scale. So what would the expenditure of $1000 buy me? Aside from bragging rights on the NAS forum?
Sun 24-Mar-13 05:43 PM | edited Sun 24-Mar-13 05:49 PM by robsb
As long as you stay in DX, I think your 12-24 f/4 should be fine. It is a nice compact lens and is equivalent to an 18 -36 f/4 crop. If you move to FX then you have to weigh your need for 17-35 f/2.8 vs. 16-35 f/4 VR. Remember it is more than the ability to shoot in low light. Yes VR can help, but only if your subject is not moving. I have never found a need for VR on an Ultra Wide lens, but I can hand hold at very low shutter speeds. An f/2.8 can blur the background more for better isolation too. Yes the IQ of the new lenses is better, but the build on the 17-35 is better. I have shot everything from landscape to building interiors with no flash, to running horses, people, to you name it. If you want to look further rent both lenses and try them out. Or just try one in Photo Store.
The 16-35 would get you a little jump in optical quality on DX and creates an FX path if you want that option. It's both slightly sharper and has less distortion. The image quality on DX is close to the 14-24. You would also eliminate the slight vignetting on the 16-85 with a CP or Vari-N-Duo, as well as grad filter holders. The vignetting applies to many of the 12-24 lenses that cannot be used with out vignetting wider than 14-15mm. The 16-35 is a fully usable 16mm.
You'll pick up some build quality. If you have other 77mm lenses, you'll have the benefit of shared filters.
>OK. If I were to get either one of these lenses, what is the >gain over the 16-85vr or 12-24 which I already have? > >One of you folks assert the 2.8 isn't needed due to the VR >feature. And most people know that the optics on the 16-85 are >at the top of the scale. So what would the expenditure of >$1000 buy me? Aside from bragging rights on the NAS forum?
You are using a DX camera with very good high iso capabilities. With both the 17-35/2.8 and the 16-35/4 VR you loose the wide angle capabilities of your 12-24 and gain very little - VR is in my opinion of little use for wide and mid-range lenses, since it does nothing to reduce subject movement. Therefore, I believe you are all set with your current WA lens.
With regard to your 16-85VR lens, the only noticeable "upgrade" would be a 24-70/2.8 which is the best mid-range zoom lens made by Nikon. The lens is quite outstanding with a DX camera, and I use f/2.8 regularly, mainly for focus isolation. I have taken thousands of pictures with this lens, but I have never missed a VR capability.
When I was using DX, a Tokina 12-24/4 and the Nikocn 24-70 met all my photography needs. When I switched to FX, I sold the 12-24 Tokina and replaced it with the Nikon 14-24/2.8.
Thanks for the input. Here's what prompted my question. Tonight is a typical Sunday evening. A very old friend is coming over for dinner. I will cook, and then rather timidly take photos. The wife hates it when I 'go DSLR on her. Using a flash only aggravates the intrusion of camera/lens into her happy dining scenario.
My usual mode, is a CB mini bracket with a speedlite mounted off to the right of the lens. I was somehow hoping to circumvent the awful flash with a faster lens. Walls are white, lighting is ok, so there is almost enough ambient.
I find myself in these circumstance often. Close in shooting, groups of 4-8. Evening hours. Sun goes down here in coastal california at about 6:10. Maybe if I start shooting earlier when daylight spills through the windows there will be enough ambient. I want at least f5.6 or 8 for DOF, and 1/60th shutter to freeze the people. I'll try 800 ISO for speed to make it work.
I think your answer is to increase the ISO to the level needed. The D7000 will easily handle ISO 1600 with minimal noise - and even ISO 3200 is probably okay for small prints and sharing on the web. Even a little high ISO grain won't look bad in a B&W image.
I would think in terms of creative decisions that work with the conditions. For groups you'll need the f/5.6-8 you suggest. For individuals you can open up the ISO quite a bit. For groups, your current lens is probably okay. You might gain a bit with a 16-35, but it's not the answer.
I'd readily drop shutter speed below 1/60 with your 16-85. VR will help - especially if you take a burst of 2-3 frames. You can get away with 1/15 to 1/30 sec with good technique and VR as long as your subjects are reasonably still.
I'd take a look at one of the f/1.8 primes - a 35mm f/1.8 or maybe a 50mm f/1.8. The lenses are small and fast. If composition permits a shallow DOF, they are easy choices.
For people images, wide lenses tend to have too much distortion and are not flattering.
Don't be timid about ISO settings. When I had a D200 I never went above ISO 800, too much noise, but my D700 is often set at 6400 when necessary. Many people who come from film make the mistake of not using the hi ISO capability of their cameras. Note your 1250 is just fine, so try higher ISO's until you know what your limits are.
What a learning experience this has been for me. I decided to forego a VR option in favor of getting the f2.8 aperture. I also am sure I am not going to migrated from a DX body to FX. The D7000 is fine for me.
A 17-35mm would cost $2000 new. The 17-55 would be $1600. I will grab a used copy of either, depending on condition and price. And will be happy either way. A lot of these choices demand self-knowledge as a photographer. But you folks have guided me along. And, as in many walks of life, I know that your experience — some amateur, some pro — didn't come cheap or fast. So I appreciate it deeply.
It is coming up on one year since I started with a digital camera and paid to be a member of Nikonians. That $25 membership was a worthwhile investment. My ENTIRE education on DSLR has come through answers to oftentimes silly or naive questions I posed here on various forums. And it was all given in good spirit. Only one post hinted that I was stupid. And, with more careful wording, I could have avoided that.
I printed out this entire thread. And have read it over 10 times. The clarity of thought and ideas of many of you just floors me. You are indeed great friends to have and treasure. I'm going out this evening to rob a convenience store to get cash for my new lens. This may take awhile, but I'll post my impressions and a few shots. If things don't go well, I'll have my wife post my prison address so you can write. I don't think they allow Internet access at San Quentin Prison.
At the risk of throwing a spanner in the works, I'll just re-emphasise something that was said above, to help manage your expectations...
For the type of shots you posted, with a 17-55mm lens you would presumably still choose to shoot at f/5.6 to get the required depth of field. Your shutter speed and ISO would therefore be the same as you currently get with your 16-85mm lens - but you would be losing the benefit of VR which currently compensates for the slow shutter speed.
In summary, I would not be surprised if shots taken with a 17-55mm in those situations would turn out worse than you're getting now.
Wow costs have gone up! Mine was $1450 in 2004. I love mine and use it for the following:
1. Landscape 2. Interiors (2.8 is very helpful since my D200 has too much noise at higher ISO) 3. Close focus wide shots on flowers 4. Creative close-ups of automobiles 5. Anything else that I feel like shooting with it.
Shoot nature with respect and don't trample it or startle its inhabitants. :)
It's a great general PJ lens for 35 mm and FX formats. It's built like a tank (and weighs about the same!), and is very rugged and reliable. If you're in a scrum of photogs in close to a subject, that forcal range won't get in the way of you snapping a good image. Shooting at f/2.8 in that focal length will get you a hint of subject isolation.
I typically buy fast (zoom and prime) lenses and shoot with them wide open.