Nikon 16-35 F4G VR

This looks like a pretty nice lens that is a must for vacationing in
one of the classical European cities like Paris, Rome, Florence..etc.,
or maybe any city. I went to a birthday party in the top floor of a
bar in Philly called Ladder 15 and the guy who threw the party hired a
professional magazine photographer. He was using a Nikon D2x I think.
It was a camera that came out before my D700. He had the SB 900
strobe on a stroboframe. I was surprised that the lens he was using
was something vert close to a 16-35 Nikon Zoom. I don't think it was
the newer one mentioned in the Subject. He used that lens for all his
pictures and they came out pretty good. The bar was very dark and
some of the pictures could have been a little lighter. I only looked
at the pictures very quickly but might it be possible that on some of
the pictures, it made some of the guests look shorter and dumpier. He
was about 6'1" pr maybe 6'2".

My once terrific Tokina 28-70 F2.6-2.8 ATXdied for the last time and I
am not fixing it. I need a normal range lens for parties and until I
remembered about the people looking dumpier I was planning on the
Nikon 16-35 F4G VR. I would like to buy the 24-70 F2.8 but I am not
spending $1,700 for a lens without VR, in the normal range or not. so,
I was thinking of getting the 16-35 and just wait till Nikon has a
24-70 F2.8 with VRII. Without buying anything, that leaves me with a
Tamrom 90 F2.8 Macro and a Nikon 70-300 F4-5.6 AF D ED.

So, I need to get the see to those pictures againt to see if the
people who looked dumpy were in fact dumpy or did the lens do that.
And does a wide angle lens make you look like you have a wide angle
body? Actually, it probably should widen you horizontally.

Alan

"Alan" wrote:

So, I need to get the see to those pictures againt to see if the
people who looked dumpy were in fact dumpy or did the lens do that.
And does a wide angle lens make you look like you have a wide angle
body? Actually, it probably should widen you horizontally.


I haven't tried the 16-35mm f/4, but I do own a 17-35mm f/2.8. I _do_
have a wide-angle body, which is one of the reasons I hide _behind_
the camera.

A wide angle lens shouldn't widen your entire subject horizontally.
It's harder to build a lens which did, because it would require more
and a different type of aspherical elements. For the same reason,
"funhouse" mirrors are more difficult to build than flat mirrors.

And if a lens did widen your subject horizontally, flipping it 90
degrees into portrait mode would lengthen your subject vertically
instead!

That said, two other things come into play. The first is barrel
distortion, which can make things look, well, barrel-like. Most zooms
have some degree of barrel distortion at the wide end, and reviews of
the 16-35mm Nikkor show it has more than average (and more than my
17-35mm). But as you zoom in with either lens, the barrel distortion
diminishes and eventually disappears, with a small amount of
pincushion distortion noted at 28-35mm.

The second is perspective. Perspective is independent of focal
length -- it's entirely a function of shooting distance. But
obviously, when you're trying to fill the frame with a shot of an
individual, the shorter the lens, the nearer you have to stand. On a
DX camera like the D2x, I'd have no problem using a 35mm focal length
for a 3/4's or full-length portrait of an adult, but my own tastes run
towards the 50-120mm range for anything tighter such as a "head and
shoulders" shot.

So the "dumpy" look might be due to perspective, or it may be because
we ain't all improbably thin models.

--
Mike Benveniste -- (Clarification Required)
Its name is Public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles
everything. Some think it is the voice of God. -- Mark Twain

Thanks Michael. I looked at the pictures again and there really
doesn't seem to be any distortion once I used full screen mode on the
Kodak Gallery. Perhaps because the photographer was tall, and he
might have been a little taller than I first guessed, some of the
shorter people looked shorter than they really are. I am going to be
the Nikon 16-35 F4G VR for my D700.

I also need a new strobe. I've been using my SB28 in auto made but
it's time for a 600 or a 900. Obviously for this lens the 600 is
plenty powerful, however, what about covering the wider angle of the
16 mm. The SB 28 has a diffuser flap for wider angles and at parties
where it's dark you need to cover a larger area or else you get a
picture where you have to crop out the sides. Do the newer strobes
adjust down to 16mm, the photographer I referred to used manual, and
do you need the 900 for the wide angle?

I was going to get a new flash chord and sensor for the new 600 or 900
but I can shoot in remote mode, using the on camera flash as the
commander BUT will the larger lens cause a shadow from the on camera
flash. Would the chord for the SB28 work with the SB900?

Finally, this Nikon NC Neutral Clear protective filter, is it
necessary and worthwhile. It's not that much money but it's $52. I
usually use a $10 multi-coated UV filter. Will it make any difference
in the picture.

Thanks,

Alan


On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 10:26:28 -0400, "Michael Benveniste"
wrote:

"Alan" wrote:

So, I need to get the see to those pictures againt to see if the
people who looked dumpy were in fact dumpy or did the lens do that.
And does a wide angle lens make you look like you have a wide angle
body? Actually, it probably should widen you horizontally.


I haven't tried the 16-35mm f/4, but I do own a 17-35mm f/2.8. I _do_
have a wide-angle body, which is one of the reasons I hide _behind_
the camera.

A wide angle lens shouldn't widen your entire subject horizontally.
It's harder to build a lens which did, because it would require more
and a different type of aspherical elements. For the same reason,
"funhouse" mirrors are more difficult to build than flat mirrors.

"Alan" wrote in message
...
Thanks Michael. I looked at the pictures again and there really
doesn't seem to be any distortion once I used full screen mode on the
Kodak Gallery. Perhaps because the photographer was tall, and he
might have been a little taller than I first guessed, some of the
shorter people looked shorter than they really are. I am going to be
the Nikon 16-35 F4G VR for my D700.

I also need a new strobe. I've been using my SB28 in auto made but
it's time for a 600 or a 900. Obviously for this lens the 600 is
plenty powerful, however, what about covering the wider angle of the
16 mm. The SB 28 has a diffuser flap for wider angles and at parties
where it's dark you need to cover a larger area or else you get a
picture where you have to crop out the sides. Do the newer strobes
adjust down to 16mm, the photographer I referred to used manual, and
do you need the 900 for the wide angle?

I was going to get a new flash chord and sensor for the new 600 or 900
but I can shoot in remote mode, using the on camera flash as the
commander BUT will the larger lens cause a shadow from the on camera
flash. Would the chord for the SB28 work with the SB900?

I have SB600 on my Nikon D200 and use it routinely on a Sigma 10-20 (15-30
equiv.) The 600's wa diffuser goes to 14mm also. It should do fine on your
16-35 if you get one. I'd recommend against the built in flash for closeups
because it does cast a slight shadow in the bottom of the shot.

"Tim Conway" wrote in message
...

"Alan" wrote in message
...
Thanks Michael. I looked at the pictures again and there really
doesn't seem to be any distortion once I used full screen mode on the
Kodak Gallery. Perhaps because the photographer was tall, and he
might have been a little taller than I first guessed, some of the
shorter people looked shorter than they really are. I am going to be
the Nikon 16-35 F4G VR for my D700.

I also need a new strobe. I've been using my SB28 in auto made but
it's time for a 600 or a 900. Obviously for this lens the 600 is
plenty powerful, however, what about covering the wider angle of the
16 mm. The SB 28 has a diffuser flap for wider angles and at parties
where it's dark you need to cover a larger area or else you get a
picture where you have to crop out the sides. Do the newer strobes
adjust down to 16mm, the photographer I referred to used manual, and
do you need the 900 for the wide angle?

I was going to get a new flash chord and sensor for the new 600 or 900
but I can shoot in remote mode, using the on camera flash as the
commander BUT will the larger lens cause a shadow from the on camera
flash. Would the chord for the SB28 work with the SB900?

I have SB600 on my Nikon D200 and use it routinely on a Sigma 10-20 (15-30
equiv.) The 600's wa diffuser goes to 14mm also. It should do fine on
your 16-35 if you get one. I'd recommend against the built in flash for
closeups because it does cast a slight shadow in the bottom of the shot.



I agree. Most of the time that shadow is the end of the lens and there is
little you can do about it, except to step further back and ruin the close
up effect you are looking for.


--
Peter

Alan wrote:


I also need a new strobe. I've been using my SB28 in auto made but
it's time for a 600 or a 900. Obviously for this lens the 600 is
plenty powerful, however, what about covering the wider angle of the
16 mm. The SB 28 has a diffuser flap for wider angles and at parties
where it's dark you need to cover a larger area or else you get a
picture where you have to crop out the sides. Do the newer strobes
adjust down to 16mm, the photographer I referred to used manual, and
do you need the 900 for the wide angle?

I was going to get a new flash chord and sensor for the new 600 or 900
but I can shoot in remote mode, using the on camera flash as the
commander BUT will the larger lens cause a shadow from the on camera
flash. Would the chord for the SB28 work with the SB900?

The SB600 zooms to 24mm, then uses a built in diffuser flap for 14mm.
With the on-camera flash used as commander, you've got the option to
dial in flash compensation (+/- 3.0 EV) for each, or set the camera
flash in the menu (D300/700) to "--" to use it only as commander. In
that setting, there's still some extremely small contribution for the
on-camera flash to exposure - you'll see the camera flash reflected
slightly on a very reflective surface, or get a minor second catch-light
in eyes, but there's absolutely no way you'll see a shadow. There's a
Nikon accessory IR pass filter that fits on the camera hot shoe to block
visible light from the on-camera flash when used in commander mode.
It's not expensive.
I'm assuming you want off-camera flash because you're aware that direct
on-camera flash sucks for anything except snapshots, so the auto zoom
feature is also a bit of a waste of time. If you're using bounce and/or
the flash off-camera, you'll set it manually.
The SB900 is more powerful, faster recycling, and can be used as an (IR)
commander on camera, but it's also (over?) twice the price.
Unless you need this, then I suggest to get an SB600, learn to use it -
if you need more, then get an SB900 later - but you'll want to keep the
SB600 as well. If you don't need the speed (recycling etc) for event
shooting, then for about the same price, 2 x SB600s is possibly more
useful than 1 x SB600.



Finally, this Nikon NC Neutral Clear protective filter, is it
necessary and worthwhile. It's not that much money but it's $52. I
usually use a $10 multi-coated UV filter. Will it make any difference
in the picture.

Probably not. IIRC some Kenco branded MC filters are Hoya.

"Alan" wrote in message
...

Thanks Michael. I looked at the pictures again and there really
doesn't seem to be any distortion once I used full screen mode on the
Kodak Gallery. Perhaps because the photographer was tall, and he
might have been a little taller than I first guessed, some of the
shorter people looked shorter than they really are. I am going to be
the Nikon 16-35 F4G VR for my D700.

[It is VERY difficult to get people past that concept of lens
"distortion" (see the thread here above and on rec.photo.digital,
especially my posts), but as "MB" points out, there is true linear
distortion in most rectangular-perspective lenses - but the barrel
type actually helps reduce some effects near the picture edges
that many associate with "distortion"...;-]

I also need a new strobe. I've been using my SB28 in auto made but
it's time for a 600 or a 900. Obviously for this lens the 600 is
plenty powerful, however, what about covering the wider angle of the
16 mm. The SB 28 has a diffuser flap for wider angles and at parties
where it's dark you need to cover a larger area or else you get a
picture where you have to crop out the sides. Do the newer strobes
adjust down to 16mm, the photographer I referred to used manual, and
do you need the 900 for the wide angle?

I found (with a white wall test) that two Nikon flashes I had with
different rated maximum angles were nearly the same - but it
didn't matter. I generally preferred to cock the flash 45 degrees
to the side and invert a Styrofoam cup over its top. I rubber
cemented crumpled aluminum foil over the back half of the cup
to keep all the light going forward. The height eliminated any
problem with shadowing from the lens or shade. To increase
the light source size, I sometimes fitted two cups together, large
ends together, and cut a hole in the rear of one just big enough
to fit over the flash end. I got some laughs, but it worked. For
more distant subjects, the zoom and tilt was used to better direct
the light.

Finally, this Nikon NC Neutral Clear protective filter, is it
necessary and worthwhile. It's not that much money but it's $52. I
usually use a $10 multi-coated UV filter. Will it make any difference
in the picture.

Thanks,

Alan

A **GOOD** UV or clear filter will work fine - but I disliked
Tiffen filters rather a lot (for self-fogging, and their too-thick rims).
There is disagreement on this, but I have tested this and have found
NO degradation of the image from using filters so long as they are
good and clean, under most circumstances.
--David Ruether
www.donferrario.com/ruether

"David Ruether" wrote in message
...

I found (with a white wall test) that two Nikon flashes I had with
different rated maximum angles were nearly the same - but it
didn't matter. I generally preferred to cock the flash 45 degrees
to the side and invert a Styrofoam cup over its top. I rubber
cemented crumpled aluminum foil over the back half of the cup
to keep all the light going forward. The height eliminated any
problem with shadowing from the lens or shade. To increase
the light source size, I sometimes fitted two cups together, large
ends together, and cut a hole in the rear of one just big enough
to fit over the flash end. I got some laughs, but it worked. For
more distant subjects, the zoom and tilt was used to better direct
the light.

I forgot to add that I almost never used flash as the primary light,
preferring a slight fill or 1:1 in really dark areas (using a 1:1 mix
of ambient and flash light effectively almost doubles the sensor's
sensitivity...).
--DR

"Alan" wrote:

I also need a new strobe. I've been using my SB28 in auto made but
it's time for a 600 or a 900. Obviously for this lens the 600 is
plenty powerful, however, what about covering the wider angle of the
16 mm. The SB 28 has a diffuser flap for wider angles and at parties
where it's dark you need to cover a larger area or else you get a
picture where you have to crop out the sides. Do the newer strobes
adjust down to 16mm, the photographer I referred to used manual, and
do you need the 900 for the wide angle?

You've gotten some good answers so far. I don't have either the
SB-600 nor the SB-900 -- I have the discontinued SB-800. But with
any of the three you either need to use the included wide-angle
pattern or an accessory diffuser to cover 16mm.

I also have a Metz 45 CL-4 digital, which I use mainly with my Pentax
645 system. While I've used it with my Nikon gear as well, I haven't
done so with an ultra-wide. You'd need a diffuser of some sort --
without one, you run out of beamspread at about 28mm on a D700.

Non digital CL-4's can't do iTTL even with the right SCA module, but
are fine for manual or non-TTL automatic use.

You're probably not interested in my BC-7/AS-2/Wein Safe Sync setup,
but just in case you want to try digital flashbulb photography drop
me a note :-).

I was going to get a new flash chord and sensor for the new 600 or 900
but I can shoot in remote mode, using the on camera flash as the
commander BUT will the larger lens cause a shadow from the on camera
flash. Would the chord for the SB28 work with the SB900?

Which cord do you have? For example, the SC-28 TTL cord is compatible
with the SB-28, SB-600 and SB-900.

Finally, this Nikon NC Neutral Clear protective filter, is it
necessary and worthwhile. It's not that much money but it's $52. I
usually use a $10 multi-coated UV filter. Will it make any difference
in the picture.

Use of a "near-full-time" protective filter is controversial beyond
all reason. Let's not go there -- it's your gear and your money, and
I respect your decision to use one.

So let's move on to UV vs. a clear protector. In the process of
blocking UV, real UV filters also block a small percentage of visible
light in the purple-blue range. You can see this, for example, in
B+W's transmission curves for their #010 filter, or in the datasheet
for Hoya's L37 material:
http://www.hoyaoptics.com/pdf/L37.pdf

For the vast majority of today's photographers, a UV filter has
no compensating advantage. Most dSLR sensors have built-in UV
filters, and modern lens coatings and cements also block UV. Modern
daylight-balanced color film is relatively insensitive to UV, as
are chromogenic B&W films and a few "traditional" B&W films. So
unless you shoot traditional B&W film like Tri-X or tungsten balanced
color film _and_ either use 25+ year old lenses or very simple
lenses like a Tessar, you should opt for a clear protector instead.

Oddly enough, I do fall into those latter categories. While I only
use a protective filter only in adverse environmental conditions, I
haven't bothered to trade-in my B+W #010 MRC's.

I haven't seen any true multi-coated UV's for $10 in 77mm. The Hoya
Pro 1 digital protector is about the same quality level as the Nikon,
but may be less expensive, especially if you're willing to order
from Hong Kong. B+W and Heliopan make fine clear filters as well, but
they ain't cheap. The Marumi DHG filters can be a reasonable budget
alternative -- The Filter Connection sells a Clear+CircPolarizer in
77mm for about $89.

--
Mike Benveniste -- (Clarification Required)
Its name is Public opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles
everything. Some think it is the voice of God. -- Mark Twain

On 11/08/2010 23:04, Peter wrote:

I have SB600 on my Nikon D200 and use it routinely on a Sigma 10-20
(15-30 equiv.) The 600's wa diffuser goes to 14mm also. It should do
fine on your 16-35 if you get one. I'd recommend against the built in
flash for closeups because it does cast a slight shadow in the bottom
of the shot.



I agree. Most of the time that shadow is the end of the lens and there
is little you can do about it, except to step further back and ruin the
close up effect you are looking for.

Many diffusers have the side effect of "extending" the built-in flash.
For instance, with a simple piece of printer paper and the right "cuts":

http://cjoint.com/data/imllQojM7b_Di...tallation1.JPG
http://cjoint.com/data/imlnyigFMw_Di...tallation3.JPG

The pictures show a bridge camera, but it's still effective on my 450D
with a 100mm macro.

--
Bertrand