UWA options

[Geoff M]

The widest lens option I currently have for FX is my 24-120 f4 and now looking for something wider. I have been looking at the Nikon 16-35 f4, 20 2.8D prime,16mm fisheye and the older 20-35 f2.8D and 17-35 f2.8AFS My problem is I have given myself too many options and cant make a decision. Anyone had experience of these lenses, or dare I say it, can recommend any other options? (excluding the Nikon 14-24 2.8 - too expensive for the number of times I anticipate using a lens of this type).

[chrisk]

The widest lens option I currently have for FX is my 24-120 f4 and now looking for something wider. I have been looking at the Nikon 16-35 f4, 20 2.8D prime,16mm fisheye and the older 20-35 f2.8D and 17-35 f2.8AFS My problem is I have given myself too many options and cant make a decision. Anyone had experience of these lenses, or dare I say it, can recommend any other options? (excluding the Nikon 14-24 2.8 - too expensive for the number of times I anticipate using a lens of this type).

well they're kinda not the same sorts of lens' really, especially the fisheye. i looked at all of these options aswell when i was going ultrawide.

the 17-35 and 16-35 are the best of the bunch optically, you couldnt go wrong with either really.
the 20D is very good but has a bit of vignetting and CA you have to deal with. but very small and light.
dont know anything about the 20-35

[Reschsmooth]

I have only had experience with the 17-35 and focus, IQ and handling is brilliant.

[aim54x]

There are a few choices.....
-17-35/16-35 if you want a zoom that you can filter, as Chris noted, both are excellent lenses. I would forget the 20-35 as they are hard to come by and it has been awhile since I have seen one come through 2nd hand in good nick (I opted for the 17-35 personally)
-20mm prime....if you are not scared of MF then I would point you towards the Voigtlander Color Skopar 20mm f/3.5 SL II (I own and love this lens and it has been in constant use)
-16mm fisheye.....only if you want a fisheye, Greg owns this lens...I own its Russian cousin (Zenitar 16mm f/2.8 MF)

If you were after other options then I would consider the Nikkor AF 18-35 as a relatively inexpensive and lightweight alternative to the 17-35/16-35.

[Remorhaz]

Hi Geoff - I've been basically considering the same thing.

I've been trying Ray's 16-35 for the past few weeks and I also had a go with Cam's 17-35 the other day. I seriously considered a second hand 20/2.8D last week - all primarily for landscape use and then secondarily for my other uses (like events, indoors low light, stars?). I'd also be interested in the Sigma 15mm fish (not to compete with the above however - just as an additional special purpose option).

OK so what have I decided... whilst I like the 2.8 of the 17-35 realistically I'd probably only ever use that for stars type shots - for everything else (except build?) the 16-35 is better - it's much cheaper (AU street prices), sharper (edges), has VR, goes wider (although 16mm is pretty distorted and with my Lee filters+CPL I use it vignettes at 16 & 17 anyway). So potentially considering something like the 15/2.8 fish or a cheap 20/2.8 for stars and the 16-35 for everything else I do.

[Mj]

I went for a 16-35/4 after some consideration for the 14-24.
Just a more practical lens for my use. I decided the VR for hand held, and filter thread, was worth more to me than the faster aperture.

[Geoff M]

Thanks for the feedback guys, I am leaning toward the 16-35 f4, may try and hire one locally for a weekend.