Nikon already have their flagship 14-24 f/2.8, they don't need another product to compete against it ;-)

Hahaha more like they have 17-35 f/2.8 already don't need to make another one.
though 14-24 targeting different level of user

14-24 replaces the 17-35, 16-35 is for budget users.

have you used the current canon's 16-35?
it's yuck

, you're right. Used it before and didn't like it at all... my Canon kaki friends were jealous even of my 16-35 f/4's IQ!

noted to my calender

---

Added on February 13, 2012, 11:35 pmhere my advice

spent one time better than keep on spending!

sidenote 35mm F1.8 is a big no no but 35mm F2 is a big yes to me

This post has been edited by Isepunye: Feb 13 2012, 11:35 PM

but d range 14-24 is onli for UWA user...
can't reali do much like walkaround...

The 14-24mm f/2.8 has the better glass. If you have the 24-70mm f/2.8, the 14-24mm f/2.8 makes a great pair.

Oh, while you're at it, get the 35mm f1/.4 too.



I think it's silly to make a new 16-35mm f/2.8 lens when Nikon already has 14-24mm f/2.8. Besides, I believe they made the 14-24mm f/2.8 to complement the trinity zooms i.e. 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8.

If you want the 35mm range, you can get the older AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8. Not too bad lah but if compared to the 16-35mm f/4, it shows it's age.

Budget? LOL There's nothing budget about the price though.

Agreed. Wide angles have always been Nikon's domain.

Depends on different shooting styles...

Early morning spam



still dunno how to use fill flash properly outdoors

the leaf at the wrong place?

hahaaa! ya... i noticed that too...

35mm is poisonous! One of my fav lens at the moment, kinda ditched my 85mm and 70-200mm for the mean time LOL.

16-35 is 'affordable' when compared against the king lens such as 14-24 and 17-35 though.

You need way more light to balance with the background... else the bokeh becomes really busy like what is shown here.

Wanna ask, what kind of zoom lens i can get around 700-800 budget for my D5100 body? Should i go for tamron or nikkor? I realize some tamron got macro feature while nikkor dont hv

The only thing that's missing from Nikkor is the 17mm PC-E lens

Like Isepunye said, spend once better than keep on spending. Later you buy a less satisfying product, you wanna upgrade, it's more wasting. Don't settle on just because it's slightly cheaper and it's also 3rd party. Maybe you should try the difference yourself.

As mentioned, the flash is going to last you for very long time, long term. So, why not save up a little more to get a Nikon's Speedlight instead of 3rd party? The price difference isn't really a lot, it may seem a lot because the price is lower, but it's nothing compared to lenses that cost thousands.

Most reviews seems to favor the 35mm f/1.8G DX:

Here's a detailed review with samples, they test BOTH controlled environment and real life situation, it's pretty obvious:
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_Ni..._compared.shtml

And also this:


This post has been edited by Andy214: Feb 14 2012, 09:24 AM

bro dun la poison so bad like tis..tried the 35G the other day, the range is just nice for indoors and the biggest aperture is super usable..argh i'll just settle down with one first..next month hopefully, another one..

does it work when you put a canon 17 ts lens on nikon body ?

wah kinda lost already.. btw does anyone knows what is the cheapest price for d700 at the moment?

This post has been edited by Irbean: Feb 14 2012, 11:44 AM

I think it was going for about RM6300 plus minus before this, but stock is really limited.

d800 got illumination button like D4?