[homababa]

兩支鏡range同價錢差不多，伹一支有F2.8，一支有VR，從影㑰質素及性價比看那支較佳，我是用d700的。

[marisalwy]

Choose that one with larger aperture and also with aperture ring.

VR is unreliable (and useless)

[ssannwong]

有冇玩菲林F-mount機？
有-＞17-35/2.8D
冇-> 16-35/4.0G VR

雖然話VR係可有可無，但難保有D時候真係要將D器材駛到盡，平常唔用唔代表永遠冇用

[whispermakers]

我之前都同你一樣有呢個煩惱, 而最後係選擇左16-35 f4 vr.
原因係:
1. 雖然廣角係差左1mm, 但視角就差左3度(以fx計), 唔好睇少果3度, 有時差少少cover唔到就係cover到;
2. 影風景一般都會收光圈, 好多時都會用到f8或以上添, 所以就算得f4我都覺得唔係咁大問題;
3. 因為2.既原因, 當收左光圈快門自然會慢左, 咁有時一d落唔到腳既情況下, vr真係幫到手;
4. 17-35 f2.8既"鏡齡"真係有番咁上下, 始終當年鏡片既coating唔係針對數碼機;
5. 17-35 比16-35貴^^"
6. 兩支鏡既pq差唔多, 由其是當用f4光圈時,16-35 比17-35仲要好少少(某雜誌既測試結果).

另外就係就算冇光圈環, 部份既菲林機其實都可以用到(請參考 kenrockwell既web page http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm). 況且我都應該好少機會會再用菲林機(因為我窮^^"), 所以最後都係16-35 f4 vr ^0^

[WALKALONE]

完全同意師兄, 1至6原因. 16~35MM 新, 平, 靚, 正!!!! 17~35都係好鏡, 相比之下正係太老,

[homababa]

17-35 䦕到F2.8質素還可以嗎?

[whispermakers]

其實pq兩支都好, 只係因為coating唔同, 17-35 抗眩光會冇16-35好.
2.8光圈以超廣角來講真係作用唔大, 你可以去睇下當光圈係2.8同4, 焦距係16/17mm時既景深係幾多.
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/dofcalc.html

[marisalwy]

2.8光圈以超廣角來講真係作用唔大,

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If large aperture is not useful for wideangle lenses, why are there so many stupid ones who still want to buy 24/1.4 and 35/1.4?

[homababa]

都認為有F2.8在有須要時，如室內或較陰暗時會好些。

[whispermakers]

當年菲林機年代, iso可以去到幾多? 而且換菲林亦都好麻煩.
今時今日數碼機閑閑地都可以去到iso6400
ching你用24同35比, 依家講緊17同16 wor, 差好遠下lor.