Comments on: Fast, Wide, and Handsome II

By: Ronald

Ronald — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 04:21:37 +0000

Now we need a F/4 24-70 mm VR as well as a F/4 70-200 mm VR, and an updated 80-400 VR. Ronald

By: Ronald

Ronald — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 04:17:16 +0000

I have bought a 16-35 mm VR, used it on my F100 and Velvia, also Ilford Delta 400 – WORKS GREAT. Razor sharp handheld even at lower speeds, got nice real raw shots at the San Antonio Missions. Ronald

By: Nikon introduces two important wide angle lenses

Nikon introduces two important wide angle lenses — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 13:47:32 +0000

[...] Sample images by Bob Krist [...]

By: Bob

Bob — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 13:45:03 +0000

Luis: I was required to shoot handheld pictures in low light, and other conditions. Personally, if I didn’t own either lens (16-35 or 17-35) and was chosing, I think I’d go for the 16 because of the VR and my impression (remembering my 17-35 from film days) that the new lens is sharper. If you already own the 17-35 and are happy with it, I wouldn’t spend the $$$. Hope this helps, Bob

By: Bob

Bob — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 13:40:30 +0000

Hi Thorsten: It was very good at f/4. I did not do formal lens tests, however, I just took pictures with it, so I have no empircal data for you other than my own casual observations that it was sharp at all apertures. You’ll have to wait for the magazines and blogs to do their exhaustive tests to get that info. Bob

By: Thorsten

Thorsten — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 10:18:41 +0000

Hi Bob, very nice pictures. I love it. The 16-35mm rocks. Handhold pictures at that shutterspeed is very interessing. I ‘ve seen, that the most pictures were not shot at f4 (because of the need of depth of field or is the quality of f4 not so good). Wow does the lens perform at f4? We have rain (and snow) in germay too -> I need this lens to take pictures Thorsten

By: Luis Faustino

Luis Faustino — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 03:08:44 +0000

Bob, great photos, congrats!
a) can you share what was required from you while testing the lens?
b) I’m on FX and have 24-70 and 70-200m and I’m looking for a wide angle lens. Been totally undecided between 14-24 and 17-35, and now the 16-35 f4 comes in to the mix..I shoot primarily portraits and weddings and music, I reckon the 17-35 is more versatile, no? Can you shed some valuable old photographer opinion? (I can find a lot of new photographers opinion around the web..!)

Best regards,
Luis

By: Bob

Bob — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 16:18:00 +0000

Dunno, Dave. Is the 17-35 that much of a stellar performer in the digital age? I know we all thought it was the cat’s pajamas in film terms, but I’ve not heard much about it in terms of performance on FX sensors (I don’t have an FX camera, but I did keep my old 17-35, along with a couple of F100s, just in case the digital thing didn’t work out:-).
My feeling on all matters of upgrading is “if ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” If you’re happy with the 17-35, then I don’t think there’s too much of a compelling reason to go to the 16-35. The VR helps me hold things steadier, and if I had to choose, I’d probably go with the slower VR just because of the shake cancelling (especially holding the bigger cameras….I’m such a wimp).
I had the new gear for such a brief period, and I had a full list of things to do with it (none of which included side by side tests) so I can’t really give you any further advice on the issue. Bob

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 16:09:11 +0000

For the working professional, do you see the benefits of VR and new glass offsetting the f/2.8 of the 17-35, given the ISO performance of the new sensors?

By: Bob

Bob — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:26:46 +0000

Mostly these are the jpegs from a RAW & JPEG shoot. I had to work on the levels on a couple of them, but the young lady in the period costume, for instance, are jpegs out of the camera. Usually, if I do a lot of post processing, things tend to look worse instead of better:-) BK