Columbia River Gorge, Oregon, January 2013.
Last week I stopped by a few of my favorite waterfalls in the Gorge and was amazed by all of the color. The greens/yellows contrasted nicely with all of the ice around the waterfalls.
Nikon D800, Nikkor 16-35 f/4, polarizer
3 image hand blend for DOF (see notes below!)
0.4 sec at f/16, ISO 200 x3
I have a question for anyone using the 16-35 f/4 on a D800. I find the performance of the lens to be very poor (extremely soft corners and it seems incapable of getting a whole scene sharp in a single exposure even at f/11 or f/16). I end up having to DOF blends just about every time I touch the lens! Does anyone else have this problem? Has anyone compared the 16-35 f/4 to the 17-35 f/2.8? I also have the 14-24 f/2.8 which I find to be much sharper in the corners, so I don't think the problem is my technique
Comments
15 commentsI don't have any experience with the 16-35 f/4 but I have owned the 17-35 f/2.8 for quite a while. I definitely see softness around the edges that I had never noticed with any other camera including film cameras. I am very interested in finding everyone's thoughts on 14-24 f/2.8 as well.
I sometimes wonder why I sold my 17-35 f2.8...but the corners and overall sharpness on the 14-24 is solid on my Nikon 800e. I only dislike the lens distortion when going wide. When I don't have close-in objects I just go with my 35mm zeiss and make a pano. Someday a tilt-shift might be nice to try.
Great photo!
Nick Bristol
Lone Rock, WI
I have no experience with the 16-35, but I own both the 17-35 and the 14-24. It's the 14-24 that I used almost all the time because it's a much better lens. The only time I use the 17-35 is when I need to use filters or if I'm trying something that might destroy my gear.
On the D800 diffraction can be a problem - I don't go higher than f/8 and do focus blends for greater dof.
Marsel
Peter