70-200mm

[snow patrol]

Think twice about the 16-35 f/4, it's an oddity of a lens. It's nice and sharp but that's it's main feature, it's big and heavy for an f/4 lens and not that much cheaper than the (arguable better and definitely faster) 14-24, though unlike that lens it does take filters. More importantly though, if you don't already have the 24-70 you will want it shortly, it's the only standard zoom worth having for Nikon full frame unfortunately.

interesting - i'm put off by the increased cost of the 14-24 and the fact that it doesn't take filters. I read a lot about the merits of the 16-35 vs the 17-35 f2.8 and the 16-35 won out slightly and has vr. I think with a super wide like that, i wouldn't be too keen on using the 2.8 any way and the vr on the f4 buys me 2 or 3 stops any way! I've read people comfortably getting sharp shots at 1/4 of a second hand held with vr on! I like the fact that it will take my 77mm filters too.

However, i know that i'd probably use a 24-70 more and 24 is still pretty wide on full frame...arrggh...the 70-200 is less of an all rounder perhaps but from my brief experience using it on full frame - totally amazing.

 

[bigredshark]

interesting - i'm put off by the increased cost of the 14-24 and the fact that it doesn't take filters. I read a lot about the merits of the 16-35 vs the 17-35 f2.8 and the 16-35 won out slightly and has vr. I think with a super wide like that, i wouldn't be too keen on using the 2.8 any way and the vr on the f4 buys me 2 or 3 stops any way! I've read people comfortably getting sharp shots at 1/4 of a second hand held with vr on! I like the fact that it will take my 77mm filters too.

However, i know that i'd probably use a 24-70 more and 24 is still pretty wide on full frame...arrggh...the 70-200 is less of an all rounder perhaps but from my brief experience using it on full frame - totally amazing.

You're right to be put off, the 14-24 is a specialised thing and trades off a lot to achieve what it does but it is the best ultra wide available today. The 16-35 is a good lens but if I wanted an ultrawide I think I'd regret not splashing out for the 14-24.

My other point was that you will want the 24-70 and use it more unless you're exclusively a landscape photographer or something similar. The 16-35 on FX is like a 10-24 on a crop sensor, it's very wide. Get the standard zoom before the ultrawide would be my advice - and the 24-70 is the only standard zoom worth having.