Nikon 16-35 f4

[iiyama]

Looking to get one for taking pictures of my work, (bathroom and kitchen installation), to build a portfolio and probably a web page. Found one for just over £800, its second hand but only 3 months old and described as mint condition. I can buy new for £875.00.

What to do? I feel that the second hand item should be a little cheaper, maybe £750, but the guy wont budge. Am I being a bit of a numpty here???

[dibbly dobbler]

In my (very!) limited experience - top quality second hand lenses seem to hold up pretty close to the new prices. I found this when buying a 60mm prime, the second hand prices were 80-90% of the new price so I think that's just the way it is...

[iiyama]

whats the point of buying s/h kit then? might as well buy new, can be 100'/. sure then!

[itsnotarace]

Forget the VR and f/4, look for a 17-55 f/2.8 or a 17-35 f/2.8 for £550 ish

Edited by itsnotarace on Tuesday 17th August 14:29

[iiyama]

17-55 2.8 is a DX lens isnt it? The 17-35 2.8 is not going to be less, (not that Ive seen!), and is also heavier. Understand that its a faster lens but Im not overly bothered, never owned anything as fast as f4 so itll do me!

Managed to get him to throw in a Hoya SHMC UV filter so thats £45 in my bin, feel its more of a bargain now!

[friederich]

If you're not so bothered about speed, why not look at a secondhand 18-35 f/3.5-4.5? I bought one last year from London Camera Exchange for £220ish. Not brick sthouse build like the f/2.8s but works perfectly well for me FF.

ETA - LCE have one listed online for £260:

http://www.lcegroup.co.uk/SHdetails.asp?Item=23483

Edited by friederich on Tuesday 17th August 17:52

[itsnotarace]

iiyama said:

17-55 2.8 is a DX lens isnt it? The 17-35 2.8 is not going to be less, (not that Ive seen!), and is also heavier. Understand that its a faster lens but Im not overly bothered, never owned anything as fast as f4 so itll do me!

Managed to get him to throw in a Hoya SHMC UV filter so thats £45 in my bin, feel its more of a bargain now!

I sold a 17-35 2.8 for £550 about a year ago, so they are out there.

17-55 is DX, but you didn't specify what body you were going to use it on

[iiyama]

Tis true! So to clarify I have a D700 and an F90X. I know that the 16-35 is a G lens so will be limited on the 90, but I suspect it wont get mounted on that body very often....

17-35.... http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&am...

New.... http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod124.html

Edited by iiyama on Tuesday 17th August 18:13

[AndWhyNot]

Ian, not sure if the first lens below (Mifsuds) is the one you're looking at - could be a price typo or a different lens.

http://www.mifsuds.com/acatalog/Used_Nikon_AF_Lens... used 16-35mm f/3.5-5.6 VR £369

These others might be reasonable alternatives. Haven't used Mifsuds above but used and would recommend all those below.

http://www.apertureuk.com/nikon_auto_focus.html#le... used 17-35mm f/2.8 £850

http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/used-equipment/us... used 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 £249

http://www.graysofwestminster.co.uk/products/secon... used 20-35mm f/2.8 £495

[iiyama]

First one is a different lens mate.

17-35 could be worth a look at that money but the 16-35 f4 is a little lighter and by all accounts every bit as good, (albeit not as fast) as the 17-35. Not sure the 20-35 will be wide enough for my needs.

Edited by iiyama on Wednesday 18th August 07:11

[itsnotarace]

I reckon this would be the best option for you in full frame without breaking the bank

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sigma-12-24mm-f4-5-5-6-EX-...
http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/widezoom/12...

Ok so you lose 11mm at the far end (but zooming with your feet is free) but you also gain 4mm at the short end which could come in really handy given your work in close spaces. I had one of these about 6 years ago and it was optically excellent and very solidly built. I only sold it because I bought a Sigma 10-20 which wasn't available when I bought the 12-24

[iiyama]

Interesting. two caveats though! First is that you cant fit a filter for front element protection. Second is that picture quality would appear to be hit and miss. Sounds like you had a goodun but it also sounds there are bad ones around when reading reviews.

8 thunk the 16-35 is the one although the one I spoke of earlier has been sold from under me. Barsteward.

still open to suggestions at this point though!!!!

[itsnotarace]

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B58B9/Contents-Fra...
http://kenrockwell.com/zeiss/slr/18mm-f35.htm

ZF.2 if you want AF

[friederich]

No comment on my suggestion of the 18-35 f3.5-4.5? Too cheap for you maybe?

I get more use out of mine than the 14-24 I bought subsequently. It's small and light (not something you can say about the 14-24, or the 16-35 for that matter), and the image quality is great.

[iiyama]

friederich said:

No comment on my suggestion of the 18-35 f3.5-4.5? Too cheap for you maybe?

Ouch!

Cheap has nothing to do with it. I need to go as wide as I can with as little distortion as possible. When reading reviews, the 18-35 has high, complex distortion which aint gonna look that good when taking bathroom interiors where there are lots of straight lines, tiles, shower enclosures etc etc.

The 14-24 fits the bill as distortion is simple and easily corrected, with no effects left after correction. Down side is cost and lack of front filter.

The 16-35 distortion varies through the range from very low to high, but its simple and easily corrected.

The 17-35 has moderate, wavy distortion, with effects left over after correction. And its the same cost secondhand as the 16-35 is new!

The Ziess lens' are also in this bracket, ie same price second hand as the 16-35 is new.

Now I have absolutly zero experience of any of these lens'. I can only go by what I read and the above is the summing up of what Ive read.