Four Nikon wide zooms (16-35/4, 17-35/2.8, 14-24/2.8, 24-70/2.8 comparison)

2010-03-12 • SEND FEEDBACK |
Related: filters

Nikon AF-S 16-35mm f/4G ED VR
Click to view

The arrival of the new Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR precipitates a desire to know which of the following four professional lenses will best master that zoom range:

• Nikon AF-S 16-35mm f/4G ED VR, about $1260
• Nikon AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF, about $1765
• Nikon AF-S 14-24/2.8G ED, about $1800
• Nikon AF-S 24-70/2.8G ED, about $1740

Or it might just boil down to size and weight for some. Which is why my 14-24 sits in the drawer most of the time, and the stunning Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 Distagon or 25/2.8 or 28/2 or 35/2 Distagons go onto the camera. Price is no small issue either.

The 16-35 cannot be called a small or even medium lens. It’s big, and I’m firmly persuaded that it’s not a solution for those seeking to avoid the 14-24. Want svelte (relatively speaking)? the 17-35 is your lens. But it’s not that simple, and I share my thoughts on the 17-35 over five years or so of experience shooting it, in my upcoming review.

I have no immediate plans to test the 18-35mm f/3.5 - 4.5, about $600. I’m not enamored of variable aperture lenses, I like more durable equipment not cheesy build, and 18mm is not 16mm. And f/3.5 - f/4.5 is a real limitation as I like to shoot at dusk a lot. That said, price matters too, but a 4-way comparison is challenge enough.

I have already shot and compared (not published) three of the zooms: the 16-35, 14-24 and 24-70. But now the 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF has arrived from both LensRentals.com and B&H Photo (two copies for those worried about build variance).

Although I’ve completed four pages of my review of these zooms (not yet published), I’ve delayed it for a day or two to incorporate the 17-35 into the mix to offer full coverage of these four pro zooms (a lens can't just be inserted later, it has to be shot on the same subject at the same time to make a good comparison in terms of lighting and size matching). So it’s off to re-shoot tomorrow am, assuming the monsoon rains blow away.

I’ve been examining the results from the 3-way comparison I shot two days ago, and I have to say the 16-35mm f/4 VR looks very promising in several ways, but that its performance varies over its range in ways that might really matter to some. I also have to say that Zeiss primes deserve my admiration after fitting them into the comparison— but the 4 zooms are the focus of DAP, those prime lens comparisons will end up in my Guide.

Please be patient as I am working hard to provide comparisons for DAP at 17mm, 24mm, maybe 28mm, 35mm, as well as other material on vignetting and distortion and ergonomics, etc on all four zooms. It’s a big job, and the long-term value I’m aiming for does not lie in making snap judgments or quickie comparisons, but rather coolly analyzing just how these lenses compare.

Primes (single focal length) lenses might also appeal to some, so I’ve listed a few of them below that I feel make The Cut. But of course I favor the Zeiss primes for most of my shooting. And speaking of Zeiss, the gnomes over there are not sitting around getting bored, this year will get "interesting" at predictable times.

(1) Screw-on filters are not possible on the 14-24, but Lee Filters has a solution.