A slightly different vantage

I posted an image similar to this one a few days ago; the difference being that this riparian view includes a bit more sky and less of the water in the foreground. For those interested in discussions of photographic equipment, I took this with Nikon’s 24-70, rather than with the 14-24 which I had in my pack, because the former accepts screw-on filters while the latter does not, and this very bright scene called for the use of a circular polarizer. The maximum angle of view for the 14-24 is 114º while that of the 24-70 is just 84º. Because I had the slope of a steep river bank behind me, I couldn’t back up. What was I to do … capture a wide, fairly washed out image with glare in the trees and on the water … or a more narrow view with good rendition? I opted for the latter. I have been scouring the internet for reviews of two other Nikon lenses, the 16-35 f/4G and the 17-35 f/2.8D, both of which accept screw-type filters. I almost ordered the latter yesterday but held off. Today, I am leaning toward the 16-35. The 17-35 is more heavily built and, at 2.8, is a faster lens. The 16-35 is lighter, because of a number of plastic components, and not quite as fast. Ken Rockwell likes both lenses, regards the 16-35 as quite sharp but showing some distortion at 16 mm, and reports that the 17-35 is, at times, soft in the corners. From what I can gather, the 17-35 is a lens for professionals for its speed and quality construction, while the 16-35 is a newer, sharper lens, made for less demanding conditions. Another photographer, Robert Rhead, compared these lenses and concluded, in favor of the 16-35, that he could deal with a bit of distortion at 16 mm and liked the sharpness and lower price tag of that lens. If anyone out there has an informed opinion, I’d be glad to hear it … soon!Creek2

%d bloggers like this: