What is the ideal walk-around lens?

[Zach Matthews]

Guys –

Now that I am on an FX body I am looking for the ‘ideal’ walkaround lens for a fishing photographer. This is obviously going to be on the wide end – I’m currently using a DX 12-24mm Nikkor, which functions like an 18-24mm lens on my FX body. It makes acceptable shots but I know I am leaving clarity on the table.

Is the 16-35mm FX f/4 my sweet spot? It sure would be nice to have f/2.8, but as I recall the only ultrawide f/2.8 Nikkor has a bulb front element that won’t take filters, and I practically wear a polarizer.

Thanks!

[Brett Colvin]

If wide is your thing, the 16-35mm f/4 VR or the 17-35mm f/2.8 would be your options with both being outstanding. The VR module on the 16-35 makes it fairly comparable, capability-wise, to the 17-35 f/2.8. The 17-35 is a pro lens, so it’s a tank with all metal build quality where the 16-35 is the more plastic-intensive variety common in Nikon’s consumer products like the 18-200 zoom (also making it lighter and less expensive).

The 14-24mm f/2.8 is the one you are probably thinking of where the front element protrudes and does not allow for screw-in filter use.

In testing, the 16-35mm is a touch sharper but the decision point is probably your budget and whether or not you want the pro build quality along with the far superior resale value that accompanies it.

Happily both options give you the 9-bladed, rounded diaphragm for sunstars and so forth. Sometimes Nikon’s less expensive optics scrimp and give you a 7-bladed diaphragm such as in the new 85mm f/1.8G vs. the 85mm f/1.4G. You would not go wrong with either the 16-35 or 17-35.

[Mike Anderson]

Zach I picked up my first non Canon lens last year. It’s a Tokina AT-X 16-28mm f/2.8 Pro FX Lens and I love the damn thing. Granted I’d rather have the canon version because of the flare issues and ability to use filters but that said the price overcomes the negatives for a hobbyist IMO. My 24-105 F4 L used to stay on the camera the most but not anymore.

A lens I’m lusting over right now is the Sigma (this is evidently one of the few great sigmas) 120-300 2.8. This lens paired with a tele and my 16-28 would cover just about everything I enjoy shooting.

A few images from the Tokina

[Brett Colvin]

As an add to Mike’s comment – the Tokina AT-X Pro 16-28mm is optically outstanding and on par with Nikon’s offerings. Tokina has always made great wides, and my favorite wide by any manufacturer on DX was the 11-16mm Tokina.

However, like Nikon’s 14-24mm, the Tokina 16-28 does not allow you to use filters due to the front element design.

[Zach Matthews]

Mike, you have become really skilled. Those are great!

Zach

[Zach Matthews]

Brett I appreciate the specifics on the Nikkor lineup. I’ve been running the pro-sumer f/4 line for a long time now and those lenses have survived everything I’ve thrown at them including in the case of the 12-24mm DX f/4 one full submersion. Sounds like the 16-35mm is my sweet spot.

Zach

[David Anderson]

Zach, having just swapped camera brands I’ve been through all the lens questions myself.

For super wide (full frame) nobody can touch the Nikon 14-24 2.8 for both optical quality and build. ((IMHO))
It’s tack sharp opened up and awesome across the whole frame by f8.
The filter thing is a problem, but keep in mind that the lens is to wide to offer even coverage with a polarizer anyway.
If you REALLY need one (and are rich) it can be done with an adapter and a 105mm filter.

I think the 16-35 choice is a better option for fishing for the filter thread and the new fly rod & reel you can buy with the money saved over the 14-24.
Only thing you might miss out on is sharpness in the extreme corners if shooting critical landscape shots.

Another thing to consider with your new full frame is prime lenses.
I’m taking the 28 1.8, 60 macro and 105 macro with me when fishing and am very happy with the results.
The 28 doesn’t have the drama of wider lenses, but is razor sharp across the full frame and perfectly matched to a polariser – it’s also free of a lot of the distortion you get on wider lenses.
The 60 is perfect for shots of fish or things and the 105 both a great macro and portrait lens.

Happy shooting..

www.dsaphoto.com

A picture is thousand words that takes less than a second while a thousand words is a picture that takes a month.

[David Anderson]

<cite> @mike anderson said:</cite>
A lens I’m lusting over right now is the Sigma (this is evidently one of the few great sigmas) 120-300 2.8. This lens paired with a tele and my 16-28 would cover just about everything I enjoy shooting.

I like the look of the 120-300 as well Mike – drool.
Sigma are on a roll lately with that, and lenses like the new 35 1.4 A series.
The 150 OS macro is also a cracker from what I’n hearing.

Nice shots as well..

www.dsaphoto.com

A picture is thousand words that takes less than a second while a thousand words is a picture that takes a month.

[Ben Cochran]

I think that you will love that 16-35 Zack, especially with 77mm filters. I have some friends that shoot professional landscape and received prerelease issues of the 16-35, loved them so much that some purchased them on release. Even though it may be a bit soft in the extreme corners, it isn’t really all that bad. I might suggest shooting for the gutter and adding for a bit of bleed, in other words, shoot a bit wider, if you are concerned with it.

[Zach Matthews]

I might suggest shooting for the gutter and adding for a bit of bleed, in other words, shoot a bit wider, if you are concerned with it.

Very good advice. Looks like I ought to tip my cap to that 16-35 when I can make it happen.

Thanks everyone.

[Mike Anderson]

A more recent shot with the 16-28. I’m still new at this Milky way stuff.

Clingmans Dome

[John Bennett]

If it’s not too late, I think you need to be specific Zach. I don’t look at those as being walk around lenses.
My typical fishing kit I’ll pack
16-35mm
24-70mm
70-200mm

By far and I do mean by far, my workhorse is the 24-70. It’s wide enough for pretty much anything but grip and grins when the option to step back isn’t there (tin cans). If shooting a fish portrait, I go right to 70mm and open the lens wide F2.8, which allows for shallow DoF and good isolation. If I happen to be across river, 70mm while a little short at times gets the job done. Basically this one lens covers almost anything I might want, from WA scenics, anglers in action/portraits to giving me the option of getting in tight, zooming in and opening the lens to f2.8.

The 16-35mm I’ll mount when I have big skies, and am shooting a scenic, however on the FF Dx, I have to watch for vignetting and typically shoot around 18mm. When I’m forced to mount it for fish (aka in a tin can) I do so reluctantly. I detest, no I loathe distorted fish shots, which is evdident even when you tell the angler to hold it in tight and not thrust it at the camera. Mounting a super WA is a rock meeting a hard place when shooting fish. Yeah you gain a little real estate, but the price…no thanks.

To me anyways, the best all purpose fishing lens is something between 20mm and 70mm. I’d hazard a guess 90% of my fishing photography is done somewhere in there.

[Zach Matthews]

Hey John –

Circumstances for me seem to dictate the need for the wide angle. 99% of my fishing is either in a tight drift boat or canoe or in some extremely crowded mountain stream on a trail — very little room to back up. I really appreciate the advice. Pretty interesting to see how different people approach it.

Zach

[John Bennett]

Different ways to skin the same cat Zach. 🙂 and everyone’s needs are slightly different. I held off buying a super WA as long as I could, but once I found myself being out in boats more and more, it became a necessity. Im reasonably confident if I studied all my fishing photos the majority (50%-75%) of them will be somewhere between 20mm and 40mm. The balance would be split between the long (over 50mm) and short (under 20mm) ends.Im currently giving a lot of thought to the 35mm f1.4 L…then I shake my head and remind myself of my bank statement

Just a thought, if you haven’t or don’t already. 18mm is as I mentioned the threshold to avoid some vignetting on the FF and that’s with a thin Signh Ray.

[Buzz Bryson]

Zach,

Lots of options.  I think the 16-35 is a good one for the wide/boat lens choice.  I loaded up and weighed an FX body, 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200, and it was (for me, certainly) much too heavy a load to not be left at home too often, quality issues aside.  I’ve read (not tried) the newer 24-120 is better than the original, both in focusing speed and image quality; it might not be as wide as you need, but it is a pretty versatile range.  The Thom Hogan and NatureScape sites have considerable discussion about “what’s the best [single, WA, all-purpose, etc] lens.

And, of course, as soon as you get that 16-35, you’ll be fretting over what to do about the moderate tele range.  That new 70-200 f/4 might be the ticket . . .
Buzz

 

[Corey Kruitbosch]

sorry … had issues hit the back button and posted to the wrong thread.

 

I know your not on a crop sensor, but for anyone who is … the sigma 18-35 looks pretty killer. Its on my list! 🙂

[Author]

Posts