20.4.2010

I had the Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 and the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 lenses but in all honesty the Nikon 14-24mm was rarely used due its heavy weight and less useful zoom range. At 24mm its still pretty wide.So the 17-35mm became the one I took with me for landscape photography. Its a very good lens - sharp and contrasty.When the 16-35mm came out I decided to sell the other 2 lenses and just have this one. However for a week I had all 3 lenses and was able to compare them.Now personally I'm not in to shooting brick walls so I shot the landscape at the bottom of my garden - which does have a few large gardens and houses in it.At f8 - f11 - the f-stop I most commonly use - I really couldn't tell the difference between the 14-24mm and the 16-35mm.Both produced shots with sharpness from edge to edge - even in extreme corners. The 17-35mm is just as sharp in the centre and edges but goes very slightly mushy in extreme corners. Not a big deal really but does show how good the 16-35mm and 14-24mm lenses are. Overall the 14-24mm does seem to the sharper of the 3 lenses though not by a massive amount. The 17-35 and 16-35mm are very similar in sharpness except in extreme corners where the 16-35mm wins out.A comparison at f4 / 24mm showed the 16-35mm outperformed the 17-35mm and got very close to the sharpness of the 14-24mm. I'd expected to see a lot of softness wide open so delighted to see it remained acceptably sharp even in the corners.I also compared the 17-35mm and 16-35mm in terms of contrast and colours and the 16-35mm was a subtle but clear winner. It just looks more colourful. I couldn't measure it but when you flick between identical photos with identical settings the 16-35mm has a slightly more pleasing colour - punchier and somehow brighter despite both shots being identical and both f11 at 1/200 of a second. Again the differences are not massive.With the extra 1mm at the wider end and having vibration reduction the 16-35mm is a clear winner for me. However if you already have the 17-35mm the difference is not so massive you need to rush out and buy the 16-35mm - in fact the differences are fairly subtle. Ok the 16-35mm has sharper extreme corners but honestly how important are the extreme corners to most photographs?The only downside to the 16-35mm is its slightly longer in length than the 17-35mm. I can just about squeeze in my D700 + 17-35mm in a small camera case but the 16-35mm requires the larger case I normally use for my D700 + telephoto lens. Weight wise the 16-35mm is 50g lighter than the 17-35mm.I suspect in real life photography the 16-35mm and 17-35mm are so close in sharpness and quality no one will tell the difference unless you do 10 foot by 20 foot posters and they look hard at the far corners! The 14-24mm is the sharper lens but again in most cases you won't tell the difference without close examination on high magnification. Its downside is weight and limited zoom range.I've had chance to test the VR ( vibration reduction ) feature of the lens. At home I can easily get sharp shots handheld at 1/4 of a second. Below that has improved impossible but 1/4 is pretty good for hand held. A visit to Lydford Gorge waterfall allowed me to test the VR in the real world and it worked pretty well. However at 1/4 second the number of blurred shots was about 60% - in part due to being rushed by people behind me trying to get past or simply being on unstable ground. I did however manage to get a few good and sharp shots of the rushing water - with the 1/4 ensuring the fast flowing water had a nice smooth look. Without VR it'd required a tripod to get any sharp shots - which would be pretty tricky on parts of Lydford Gorge due to its narrow paths and quantities of people

10.2.2014

I spent a long time wondering if buying the Nikon 16-35mm was going to be a wise choice.I had intended going for the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8, I already own the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 so it seemed at first to be a no brainer given the 14-24mm's reputation for image quality.Then I did some online research, a whole day in the end, and the choice became increasingly less obvious. Opinion was pretty much divided, no one argued the quality of the 14-24mm but in other areas the choice was less clear cut.I decided to go back to the drawing board and re-evaluate how I would be using the lens.The lens was for intended for landscape so the 16-35mm on an FX body was a good focal length for this.I like to shoot in inclement weather,the Nikon 14-24mm's inability to accept filters so having the front element exposed to wind, sand, sea spray and rain without the protection of a UV filter would have been a major concern.The 16-35mm is an f4, so down a stop on the 14-24mm, and unlike many landscape photographers I rarely use a tripod as I find it gets in the way. Photographing whilst standing on slippery wet boulders can be tricky enough without a tripod to send you flying, so I tend to opt for a monopod or hand hold. So the Vibration Reduction had appeal.Also the for me focal length had an advantage, 16-35mm covers a good spectrum of wide angle use. I try to plan for the lens I need before I go out and shoot. Changing lenses in rough weather is not a good idea to me, not only the risk of unwanted debris entering the camera or rear of the lens, but also the risk of dropping it.On this basis I opted for the 16-35mm f4. So how have I found performance?I ran some tests as far as I was able against my Nikon 24-70 f2.8, I took some shots at 24mm and 35mm on both lenses at the same f-stops, f4 and f8 with my Nikon D800 mounted on a tripod. I then blew these up to 300% in PhotoshopCC on a 27 inch monitor. This way exceeded what I would require of the lens.At 35mm the Nikon 24-70mm appeared to have the advantage in terms of edge to edge sharpness, also for some unknown reason the the 16-35mm seemed to loose colour saturation compared to the 24-70mm. At f8 the 16-35mm was better though not the colour. This was simply adjusted in Photoshop.At 24mm the situation reversed and the results were very noticeably better than those from the 24-70mm at both f stops. The colour saturation problem also disappeared.I also ran some tests at 16mm, though I could not make any direct comparisons, the shots were taken in a conservatory with white chairs that had a wicker pattern on them. At f4 there was no real detail on the chairs at the image edges, at f8 the image improved very dramatically with good detail across the entire frame. This improved still further at f11.All images taken at on the Nikon 16-35mm at f8 and viewed at 100% in Photoshop were impeccable.In the field.If I was still having doubts about my choice these did disappear once out in the wilds. This is a lovely lens to use. At first I thought it felt bit light and plastic for a pro Nikon lens, but once on the D800 it felt very well balanced and a very comfortable weight. It is fully weather sealed and suffered no mishaps when shooting close up to water falls despite getting fairly wet.The quality of the images has not disappointed in any way. I think what counts are the results you get in the field, and this lens really delivers, also I experienced no issues at 35mm.Also there is a significant price difference between the 14-24mm and the 16-35mm, large enough in fact to buy another piece of kit.Perhaps if I ever take up interior photography I will take another look at the 14-24mm.

27.3.2010

I've been considering buying Nikon's 14-24mm f2.8 for a few months to fit my D700 that I bought last November. However, I was concerned about the lack of protection afforded to the somewhat bulbous front element due to the inability to fit filters. Nikon's 14mm prime at least allows filters to be fitted to the rear but has an equally unprotected front element.The new 16-35mm loses a few degrees coverage at the wide end, is a stop slower but takes 77mm filters. Nikon suggests 4 stops extra shutter speed from v2 of their anti-vibration system for this lens. Lets be conservative & say only 3 stops - that's still very significant & translates into being able to shoot down to 1/4" if you have steady hands.

28.10.2017

The Nikkor 16-35mm f4G VR is the second widest and second cheapest of Nikons ultra wide zoom lenses, the others being the Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8G, Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D and finally the Nikkor 18-35mm f/3.5-5.6G.The build of the Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G VR is good but not great. It is made from plastic and isn't of the same quality as older Nikkor lenses or the Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8 but it does feel generally well made and is also weather sealed.It is slightly smaller than the Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G (900g) but considerably lighter (685g). It feels good in the hand and the zoom ring works smoothly. Unlike the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 (and Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 VC) the 16-35mm has a 77mm filter thread,

10.10.2010

I've had this lens for a while now. Initially I wasn't sure and nearly sent it back, but the more I use it the more I appreciate it. It was a toss up between this lens and the Nikon 14-24 2.8. I decided that the 14-24 was just too bulky and heavy to carry around all day, and that bulbous front glass was way too exposed to damage for my liking, not to say that it isn't an amazing lens - it is - but perhaps a bit too specialised for my tastes as a keen amateur rather than a pro. Having recently tried the 14-24 on my camera it has confirmed that I made the right choice as the other issue with the 14-24 is that although it is 2.8, taking sharp handheld shots in low light was very much hit and miss,

27.8.2015

Date of purchase: 03/08/2015There are far more detailed reviews here as well as on the net; so I'll keep it simple:1) the 16-35mm is lighter (680g versus 1000g) than the 14-24mm. One can argue that if you're shooting landscape and the lens is mounted on a tripod, the weight doesn't matter. Well, who's going to carry it there? :)2) the 16-35mm is cheaper (£829 versus approx. £1200) than the 14-24mm. That's highly subjective to your budget, but £370 is a considerable sum which can be invested back in your photography gear.3) As if the 14-24mm isn't bulky enough, please Google pictures of the 14-24mm with the Lee filter system; it's an absolute behemoth.4)

22.3.2013

This 16-35 Nikon lens is a bit special in my books.Obviously only being F4 it isn't quite as useful in the dark as its predecessor - the 17-35mm - not to be confused with the DX only Nikon 17-55mm F2.8G\AF-S DX IF-ED lens but other than that it blows it out the water.The joys of this lens are many.The AF-S drive is fast and silent as you'd expect. The Nano Crystal coating and ED glass works. Ghosting is pretty much never an issue with this lens which is brilliant on something as wide as 16mm.The VR also has turned out to be surprisingly useful. I didn't think it would be but there have been many situation where it has allowed me to get images not otherwise possible.

16.9.2012

Hello there,As a full time professional photographer lens purchases are something I do after lots of research and after trying them out first. As a Nikon shooter I have owned 2 copies of the 14-24mm lens which is a truly stunning lens but very heavy and the bulbous end makes it a bit of a pain.A few weeks ago a friend of mine lent me the 16-35mm F4 Nikon Lens, I was dubious at first as its an F4 lens but with the VR I can easily hand hold this lens to around 1/5th of a second hand held, this means I can get amazing tac sharp images even in poor light (I am mainly a wedding photographer) and having used this lens for 3 weddings since owning it, I cant get over how great it is.I have also found that I use this lens a lot more than the 14-24.

10.7.2019

This is a very good wide-angle zoom lens. I know people contrast it with the 14-24mm f2.8 which is a bit unfair - given the price difference. The latter is very expensive and does not have VR, has a bulbous front element and costs a wad a loot. The 16-35mm f4 is a lot more affordable and no protruding front element. To be honest, I have tried both lenses and have found they perform somewhat similarly. Reading online reviews some are against the 16-35mm but many more are for this lens - perhaps they got bad copies. The original lenses where made in Japan, the one I now have is made in Thailand - none issue as they are made to Nikon's exacting standards.At 16mm wide the lens is fine.

28.11.2016

They call this lens the "Landscaper Lens" and they do this for one reason. It is insanely sharp and brings out all the best colours!As an aspiring Photographer I upgraded my Body last year to a D810 and with the upgrade I thought I could do with some new glass. After much consideration and debating to get the 24-70mm f/2.8, I decided to go for this lens; the 16-35mm f/4 VR.Although this lens doesn't have much of a focal length difference (19mm) the stunning 16mm is breathtaking on a full frame sensor and is wide enough to get a lovely shot WITHOUT warping or any sign of vignetting or fish-eye effect. Furthermore I sometimes like to shoot at full zoom, 35mm,

7.10.2015

I bought this lens from Dales in Leeds new for £795 on 2 years finance as that makes Nikon gear affordable for me. Make no mistake this is a pro grade lens. Half the weight and price of the 14-24. It is plastic but it feels solid, well made and every bit a quality product. I use it primarily on a D600 / D750. In use it focuses fast and accurately in all modes and feels perfectly balanced on the camera. The zoom ring is behind the focus ring and can be a little fiddly to use but is a minor inconvenience. I always shoot with distortion control and vignette control on because that's what they are for. The results that this lens produces are extremely sharp and I mean sharp at the centre and this continues to the edges too.

19.11.2013

I bought this to replace the 20-35mm f2.8 that has served me since film days. This is a stunning sharp lens for high resolution FX cameras, like the D800. It would be wasted on DX cameras. It would not be good for film as it does have a lot of complex distortion (only partially corrected with straightforward barrel/pincushion plug-ins), the only ultra-wide zoom for film is the old 20-35, which is just too soft for D800 or D800E.I did try the 14-24mm f2.8 which would have 2 advantages. An extra stop brighter for manual focusing or AF in very dim light and the extra angle of view at the wide end. However, although not much bigger than the 16-35mm f4, the 14-24mm is a much more awkward shape.

5.6.2017

I have seen many detailed reports on the differences between the 12-24 and the 16-35. I am a pro landscape photographer and I can tell you that dispite the 16-35 being an excellent lens and having VR it is nowhere near as sharp at all focal lengths than the 14-24.Yes, the 14-24 is heavier, will only accept Lee filters and has no VR. BUT here's the thing, PRO landscape photographers don't use VR (images are softer with VR on) we accept heavy lenes because of the quality of the glass, they are faster and we will buy and use Lee filters because they are the best filters in the world.I actually own both Lenes. If I need to travel light on a fun day out and carry everything like on a hike up a mountain,

5.9.2012

I purchased this lens after much deliberation over which wide angle to go with for my D800. The list included this, the 14-24, 17-35 and the 24 1.4. It has proven to be an excellent choice. The 14-24 is of course fantastic but I use a lot of filters. The 17-35 has a great rep but the newer 16-35 has been shown to be sharper across the frame and it has VR. The 24 1.4 was very tempting but at nearly twice the price I did not see the benefit when I do very few low light hand held wide shots.The lens is sharp as hell on the D800 and is a nice weight as well, if a little long. It's build quality is solid, although a bit beneath the mighty 14-24.

16.4.2014

Though I also have the Nikkor 14~24mm lens, I often grab this lens when I need to have a filter - be the filter a neutral density or a polarizer for scenery - or simply a protective skylight filter when I'm in potentially dodgy situations, such as photographing political demonstrations "close up and personal" or where there could be sand and debris blowing in the wind. Be aware that beyond thin skylight filters, thicker filters will cause minor vignetting at the wider focal lengths, but that can be remedied in post processing.The VR function is interesting in that it's amazing how slow of a shutter speed can be used handheld if one is carefully braced at the 16mm setting.

Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR AF-S Nikkor - Reviews

Info

Analysis

Detail