Which lens Nikon 17-35mm or 16-35mm FX

[wommby]

Hi All,

Can anyone give me some good arguments on which of these two lenses is better and why. The Nikon 17-35mm is an f2.8 lens while the 16-35mm is an f4 lens.

Primarily I will be using it for general wide angle but plan to also take it underwater with me. I have no idea why one would be better than the other.

Please help.

Debbie

[Black Pearl]

The 16-35mm is a brand new design and has VRII - optically it's better and while you lose a stop the VR (in my opinion) is more useful.

That said it might come down to getting a housing so the choice may not be yours.

[wommby]

Robin,

Thanks for this. I have the underwater housing already and can accommodate either lens.

[Letrow]

I would argue that the F/2.8 might be more useful to you in general. The 16mm would give you a fraction more wideangle though.

Whether VR is really useful on this lens I don't know. I think you don't really need it for wideangle, but more for the 85mm + range.
I am assuming you shoot FX, otherwise these lenses don't make sense.

It might boil down to size and weight and price in the end.

[wommby]

I would argue that the F/2.8 might be more useful to you in general. The 16mm would give you a fraction more wideangle though.

Whether VR is really useful on this lens I don't know. I think you don't really need it for wideangle, but more for the 85mm + range.
I am assuming you shoot FX, otherwise these lenses don't make sense.

It might boil down to size and weight and price in the end.

Thanks, I do shoot FX and wondered whether the VR is useful for wide angle as I always use a tripod which means you need to turn the VR off. Still think maybe the 17-35mm as I have also just found out that I can only get a zoom gear for this lens and not the 16-35mm.

Thanks for your thoughts.