Nikon 16-35mm f/4 - user info?

sophos9

sophos9

Messages
884
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

I'm thinking of changing my Nikon 14mm f/2.8 to a 16-35mm. Was wondering if you use one and if so, how do you rate it?

My priority is sharpness/quality over speed and the internet reviews suggest the optics are very sharp.

Also, wondering how bad the distortion is a 16mm and if you have found this to be an issue?

Thanks in advance
 
Hi Dave, i picked one up this week but was concerned about some horror stories regarding soft copies, i sold a 14-24mm as it was too specialised, too heavy and cant take filters, only done a little testing but couldnt be happier, centre sharpness is great with a little softening at the corners at f/4 and 16mm, stop down to f/5.6 and its fantastic, at f/8 its tack sharp fron centre to edge.

In the real world distortion isnt an issue for me, i suspect if you shoot brick walls and prison bars for a living it might be an issue but its easily corrected anyway if needed.

Vingetting isnt a problem either

The VR is awesome and works fantastic down to 1/5th sec
 
Great, thanks for the replies - I had not heard of soft copy issues so thanks for the heads up. I'll be buying from Warehouse Express so will shoot it in there first. Good call in the filters, one of the reasons putting me off a 14-24.

Also glad to hear that distortion is not a problem shooting real life :)

Thanks for the help
 
I think the 14-24 is brilliant- even nicer than the 70-200. If I didn't have a 17-35 I'd probably buy one. You do get filters for it now but they are a bit pricey- especially if you have a substantial investment in standard Lee sizes- that's the only thing that would put me off.
Used the 16-35 and certainly the one I had was good but it wasn't the 14-24. Bear in mind these things are all relative and it was still a great lens. I didn't realise there was a bit of QC around the 16-35 lens so perhaps worth bricks and mortar route.
You wont go wrong with either but I'd try a 14-24:)
 
My 16-35 is my most used lens. I sold my 24-70 as it just stopped getting used. Mine is very sharp, even at f/4. The corners are a little softer, but not so it ruins the image. The VR is great, makes getting lowlight shots a lot easier. Vignetting is pretty much non existent. I only get some when I mount my Lee holder and grads, easily fixed in Lightroom though
 
I am also considering the 16-35, a great landscape lens which is meant to be as sharp as a pin. My other choice is the Zeiss 21mm but concerned about the inflexability shooting at this focal length and that it may not be wide enough for me.. The Zeiss may be optically better but only if you really pixel peep. Any slight distortion (for me horizons) is easily corrected.

I've not made my mind up totally but I like the fact that I can shoot at 16mm (for beaches and such like) or 24mm if I need that little extra reach.

This video is pretty informative even if the rating given by the maker is not favourable, but then maybe not a landscape shooter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9afyHsVNvYc&feature=related
 
It's the lens I've weighed up as the most sensible option for an FX body when I change this spring.

I would definitely get the use from the 14-24mm but it's a big piece of glass that just looks like its asking for a scratch on that massive front element. The 17-35mm is amazing, it truly is, but from new it's a big cost and even on the used market it still commands a high premium. The older 20-35 doesn't interest me (20mm doesn't transfer to DX use that well) so the 16-35mm fits the bill best. The f/4 can be offset with high ISOs, plus I can fit filters if required. I read that Photozone review and I cam live with the distortion, although I've taken note of the apparent 'bad' copies.
 
The difference between the 14-24 I bought and the two 16-35's I tried is immense, for me it was like when I swapped from the Sigma 24-70 to the Nikon 24-70 ... only worse!
Unfortunately the dealer only had two and nowhere else local had them in stock.
Anyway got my overpriced Lee SW150 filter kit now, so just have to live with the pain!
Definitely a lens not to be bought without trying/having a returns option.
 
Just taken some pano shots with the 16-35mm and got to admit it did as well a job as the 14-24mm i used to use, its sharp right to the edge which i need when overlapping images

wakey01.jpg


wakey02.jpg


wakey03.jpg


wakey04.jpg


wakey05.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top