Nikon 16-35 or 18-35

I had the older 18-35 and now have the 16-35, I made the change due to the moustache distortion that was difficult to correct (and there wasn't a LR profile for it). However, the 16-35 is much bigger and heavier, the VR is very good though and mine is sharp across the frame, even wide open.

18mm is plenty wide enough to get dramatic perspective so I wouldn't be too concerned about the 2mm, it's the other factors that would decide my choice. On the other hand, for some people, if you want wide you just can't get wide enough so the 2mm would be worth the extra.
 
The new 18-35G lens is very good, close to the 16-35 and quite a bit cheaper, however it annoyed me that there didn't seem to be an LR profile for it at the time and it felt very plasticky so I went for the 16-35 which is dearer but its also much much better built and the VR was really handy. I don't have either now as I was doing less wide work but I'll be looking for a 16-35 shortly over the other options as I want to get one again.
 
I currently have the 16-35 f4 and have to say it's very good. I was recommended the 16-35 f4 over the older 18-35 by a friend due to corner sharpness on fx. Weight wise the new 18-35 is 385g compared to 685g of the 16-35, it is double the weight but for most people 300g extra isn't too much of an issue. Filters shouldn't be an issue for either. You could pickup a used 16-35 for a just a little bit more than the 18-35 new.
 
If, on the odd occasion, you really do need that extra 2mm ... can you not just walk backwards a bit? It would be cheaper and easier.
 
Last edited:
Stuart M said:
If, on the odd occasion, you really do need that extra 2mm ... can you not just walk backwards a bit? It would be cheaper and easier.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter how far you walk back, it's still an 18mm focal length and your field of view won't change, you'll just be a bit further away from what you were shooting.

If you need 16mm the 16-35 is the one to get of those two, 2mm is significant at these focal lengths.
 
If you don't need the VR and/or the extra 2mm but want a lens that's plenty sharp enough, light in weight and compact save some cash and get the 18-35. I can't comment on how it fares against the 16-35 as I have never used one. It holds up well against my 14-24 though.
 
Thanks for the comments so far, in real world terms when would you say 16 is preferred to 18? I like the idea of being able to shoot ultra wide but haven't really had any experience with this. I have the 24-120 f4 and I'm also curious if 18-35 would compliment that lens?
 
Adam Wortman said:
Thanks for the comments so far, in real world terms when would you say 16 is preferred to 18? I like the idea of being able to shoot ultra wide but haven't really had any experience with this. I have the 24-120 f4 and I'm also curious if 18-35 would compliment that lens?
Click to expand...
I could manage quite happily with the 18-35 and 24-120, with a couple of faster lenses for indoors - 28 and 50. But those lengths suit me. Some people like the wide angle look. Others find it artificial. It all depends on what and how you shoot if certain lenses will suit you.

I know it's heresy on here to suggest Ken Rockwell might ever offer good advice, but in this case I think he has - http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm
 
Ed Sutton said:
I could manage quite happily with the 18-35 and 24-120, with a couple of faster lenses for indoors - 28 and 50. But those lengths suit me. Some people like the wide angle look. Others find it artificial. It all depends on what and how you shoot if certain lenses will suit you.

I know it's heresy on here to suggest Ken Rockwell might ever offer good advice, but in this case I think he has - http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm
Click to expand...

Thanks, I'll check out what he has to say, just don't tell anyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top