Nikon 16-35 Opinions

ah5168

ah5168

Messages
1,385
Edit My Images
No
I am thinking of buying the new Nikon 16-35mm to use on a D700. I would mainley be using it for acchitecture and so would normally be using it at 16mm and f8 ish

Has anyone used it and if so what do you think of the Sharpness, Distortion and CA at 16mm/f8.

Cheers
 
Loving mine. Sharpness is very good and no CA. Distortion is bad at 16mm though, but correctable in PP.

 
Do you know how much better is it in terms of CA and sharpness over the old 17-35 f/2.8 (still listed as 'current' on the Nikon UK website) and do you find that you actually 'need' the VR facility? I'm guessing since it's an f/4, you might well do...
 
Better than the 17-35mm (I think everyone agrees on that) in terms of sharpness across the frame. Not fully sharp into the far corners, but better than 17-35. Not seen any CA at all. VR is fab, above shot is hand held @ 13th x 3 into HDR. I am well happy with it on FX, DX seemed slightly soft @f4, but fine by 5.6
 
One from Wells yesterday. 25mm @ f10 1/800"

 
Beagletorque said:
Better than the 17-35mm (I think everyone agrees on that) in terms of sharpness across the frame. Not fully sharp into the far corners, but better than 17-35. Not seen any CA at all. VR is fab, above shot is hand held @ 13th x 3 into HDR. I am well happy with it on FX, DX seemed slightly soft @f4, but fine by 5.6
Click to expand...

Who is 'everyone'?

My 17-35 is almost as good as my 24-70, so that new lens must be the best lens Nikon's ever made...:D
It does suffer a tiny bit of CA on high-contrast items, but the lack of nano-crystal coating would account for that - it's certainly no slouch for a 15-year old design.
 
Arkady said:
Who is 'everyone'?
Click to expand...

Webby reviewers mainly and those that have tried both...

Arkady said:
My 17-35 is almost as good as my 24-70, so that new lens must be the best lens Nikon's ever made...:D
Click to expand...

The 24-70 is fantastic too on FX and DX, but a different beast to the UWA. Is the 16-35mm better, well they are just different lenses and depends on what you like to shoot. 16mm on FX with such close focus is just fantastic to play with, it does not make it "better" than the 24-70. In terms of sharpness, colour, blah blah, they are quite similar and in my view both ahead of the 17-35, which is still a great lens.

Arkady said:
It does suffer a tiny bit of CA on high-contrast items, but the lack of nano-crystal coating would account for that - it's certainly no slouch for a 15-year old design.
Click to expand...

Price for price the 16-35 is the choice of the 3, the 14-24 being the out right winner on IQ over its range, all be it with the filter issue.

I don't think you will regret buying one for FX.
 
Thanks for the info, chaps...I'll be sticking with my 17-35...was curious, that's all... I had a 14-24 as well but found it to be too wide for anything I usually shoot, so i sold it a while back (plus I have a 16mm f/2.8 Fisheye-Nikkor for any time I need to go really wide).

Now, a re-vamped 17-35 f/2.8...that would be interesting...
 
thesmileyone said:
A google says lots of people review the 16-35 as "has lots of barrel distortion" at 16mm and isnt as good as the 17-35 it replaced.
Click to expand...

I've tried both and unless I have an excellent 17-35 (and I have) and **** poor 16-35 IMHO the 17-35 is a better lens I think.

TBH I think a Nikon 12-24 on a D300 will do better than a 16-35 on a D700 for edge sharpness, all being equal (both 12 megapixels, one will have sharper edges - guess which ;))
 
thesmileyone said:
A google says lots of people review the 16-35 as "has lots of barrel distortion" at 16mm and isnt as good as the 17-35 it replaced.

Also the 17-35mm is a whole stop wider so you get better DoF results (bokeh).
Click to expand...

Not sure the 16-35 actually 'replaced' the 17-35, considering the former's price and slower max-aperture...

puddleduck said:
I've tried both and unless I have an excellent 17-35 (and I have) and **** poor 16-35 IMHO the 17-35 is a better lens I think.

TBH I think a Nikon 12-24 on a D300 will do better than a 16-35 on a D700 for edge sharpness, all being equal (both 12 megapixels, one will have sharper edges - guess which ;))
Click to expand...

Which is pretty much as I suspected would be the case - I was hoping someone who'd actually used/owned both would pitch-in eventually...:D
 
Arkady said:
I had a 14-24 as well but found it to be too wide for anything I usually shoot
Click to expand...

Me too - the 14-24 is optically better than both the 16-35 and 17-35 once you start looking at those peskey corners on full frame...

But I find its just a lens I never actually use - I think I must have had one at least twice and always go back to the 17-35.

I picked up another 17-35 recently (brand new) and I find it a very special lens - classic Nikkor. One thing about the 16-35 VR - its made the 17-35 a bit more affordable as the price it was hitting was really silly.
 
puddleduck said:
Me too - the 14-24 is optically better than both the 16-35 and 17-35 once you start looking at those peskey corners on full frame...

But I find its just a lens I never actually use - I think I must have had one at least twice and always go back to the 17-35.

I picked up another 17-35 recently (brand new) and I find it a very special lens - classic Nikkor. One thing about the 16-35 VR - its made the 17-35 a bit more affordable as the price it was hitting was really silly.
Click to expand...

How much did you pay for it?
Mine's looking a bit tatty now - tempted to get it re-furbed by the local Nikon dealer to try and remove the annoying squeak it picked-up in Iraq 2 years ago...
 
puddleduck said:
Its really up to you.

Personally no I woudn't pay that for one (and didn't), as the Tamron does very well for 4x less.

You have a D300 as well, and I definately would not pay a grand to put a lens on a camera that going to crop off most of the frame!

If you had a D3X I'd probably say the Nikkor...
Click to expand...

I'm glad Andy coughed for the real thing, as although the Tamron was optically indistinguishable from the Nikon (took his advice and bought the Tamron 1st and sold it at a nice profit too, thanks to Andy for the Mifsuds heads-up) the build quality was not. I found the 16-35 was sharper on FF, no CA (Nik 17-35 is aspherically challenged) and better flare (Nano coated) so it was a no brainer bearing in mind the £849 price tag for the sharper lens, so the 17-35 got the chop too to pay for it.
I have to say I don’t have the time or patience to do exhaustive testing like Andy but I am grateful to him, as I know are others on the forum, for his excellent advise. It’s like having our own little TP Rockwell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top