Reviews? - Nikon 16-35mm f4 G AF-S ED VR

Barney12

Barney12

I like Sailors
Messages
1,489
Edit My Images
Yes
Doesnt seem to be much in the way of reviews of this latest lens from Nikon.
Anyone got one or used one?

Consdiering it over the 12-24 which is just soooooo expensive. Especially by the time you stumped up for the soon to released Lee filter holder.

Ta

Barney
 
Do you mean 12-24 or 14-24? I'm assuming 14-24 since the 12-24 takes 77mm filters.

I've seen plenty of impressions of the 16-35, it appears to basically be a very sharp lens (sample variation aside) with less CA than the 17-35, and the VR works. It has more barrel distortion than the 14-24, but this can be fixed in PP.

Of course neither the 14-24 or 16-35 are intended for DX (big, expensive, not ultra wide), there're better-suited options available.
 
Thanks Mud, yes sorry 14-24, I think I am developing number blindness after trawling through so many reviews and web pages :)

I'm trying to decide on a replacement for my Sigma 10-20 as I want to trade up to the D700. But its the lack of affordable wide glass for full frame that is currently holding me back.

The VR function is what caught my eye on this one as I suffer from a tremor and have to keep shutter speeds fairly high.

Barney
 
You could look at the Nikon 18-35mm? Ok, it's not constant aperture, nor does it have VR, but who cares when it's a wide angle lens for landscapes? As a result, it comes in £500 ish. It's said to be very sharp indeed, and if I'm honest, 18mm on FF is pretty wide... Wide enough for most landscapes anyway. It also has a filter thread whereas the 14-24 doesn't. Oh, and yes, it is FF compatible :)

Personally? If I had the money, I'd own both the 16-35 and the 14-24. I refuse to sell my 14-24 and replace it with the 16-35 simply because optically the former is better, and I'm a whore for IQ :D That said, I can't afford nor justify the 16-35 right now, and so the 20mm F/2.8 prime is a far cheaper alternative, especially when S/H. Also with the prime you are, in some small way, forced to consider your composition more carefully. Cropping is bad mmmmm'kay! ;) :D
 
Woodsy said:
You could look at the Nikon 18-35mm? Ok, it's not constant aperture, nor does it have VR, but who cares when it's a wide angle lens for landscapes? As a result, it comes in £500 ish. It's said to be very sharp indeed, and if I'm honest, 18mm on FF is pretty wide... Wide enough for most landscapes anyway. It also has a filter thread whereas the 14-24 doesn't. Oh, and yes, it is FF compatible :)

Personally? If I had the money, I'd own both the 16-35 and the 14-24. I refuse to sell my 14-24 and replace it with the 16-35 simply because optically the former is better, and I'm a whore for IQ :D That said, I can't afford nor justify the 16-35 right now, and so the 20mm F/2.8 prime is a far cheaper alternative, especially when S/H. Also with the prime you are, in some small way, forced to consider your composition more carefully. Cropping is bad mmmmm'kay! ;) :D
Click to expand...

Thanks Woodsy, some excellent advice there and having looked through your Flickr pages I am humbled by your skill level, especially with landscapes.
I think the bottom line is I lust for the 14-24 but can't justify the expense at the same time as a new body. I've seen the 18-35 for £400 so that could provide the interim solution.

Now to work out the cunning plan that sees the D300 turn into a D700 right before the wifes eyes without her noticing the cost :D

Barney
 
I've just been bad. Very, very bad! :naughty:
 
Check you can achieve critical sharpness throughout the frame while the lens is easily returnable (though this may be slightly limited by your crop sensor), and with that painful bit of tedium out of the way enjoy yourself! ;)
 
Tractor Boy said:
What - bought a Canon :lol::lol::lol:
Click to expand...

Oh No I bought something with the numbers:

700

and

16-35

oh and then I added

50 (of the nifty variety)

How the hell am I going to smuggle that lot in the house? :nuts:

Barney
 
Mud said:
Check you can achieve critical sharpness throughout the frame while the lens is easily returnable (though this may be slightly limited by your crop sensor), and with that painful bit of tedium out of the way enjoy yourself! ;)
Click to expand...

Is there a proven method (I can do it on FX or DX bodies)?

Barney
 
Erm, brick walls or printed media work well I guess. I wouldn't worry too much, I'm only scaremongering based on the experiences of a few!
 
Woodsy said:
Look forward to the results :) and indeed your thoughts on the lens!
Click to expand...

Well if the nice Parcel Farce man delivers tommorow I hope to be out on Saturday.

Forecast is for good weather down here!

Fingers crossed!

Barney
 
I have a 18-35 and am very pleased with the results. I bought it in mint condition off Ebay for £250. I use it on FF and coupled with my 24-70 i'm pretty well sorted for landscapes.

I have heard of some build quality and image quality issues with the 16-35 so will wait a while longer before i look at buying one. Of course there is also the 17-35 which has a very good reputation.
 
Woodsy said:
Look forward to the results :) and indeed your thoughts on the lens!
Click to expand...

Well managed to sneak a quick walk up at the reservoir this afternoon. Not really had time to use the D700 and lens in anger. Lens is actually lighter than I imagined it would be. With a 77mm thread polariser on it vignettes quite badly at 16mm. But its certainly sharp and the VR seems to work well.

Hopefully the weather might not be as bad as forecast tomorrow and I'll sneak another walk (supposed to be doing paperwork!!)

4609811032_7e12cb4d7e.jpg


Bigger

Barney
 
Oooo, hello! That's a cracking shot! Nice, simple, un-cluttered composition, and works well in B&W. Lens appears nice and sharp as well. Now I want one :D
 
Woodsy said:
Oooo, hello! That's a cracking shot! Nice, simple, un-cluttered composition, and works well in B&W. Lens appears nice and sharp as well. Now I want one :D
Click to expand...

Thank you. Its up at Tottiford and Trenchford Reservoirs on Dartmoor. Just about my favourite walking spot.

Go on, buy one. Whats "one more" lens :)
 
Barney12 said:
Go on, buy one. Whats "one more" lens :)
Click to expand...

Its a decent enough shot, but its 21mm, and stopped down, and definately didn't need VR.. so... :D

Did it need a £1k lens to take this? Could not have have done this shot with a Tamron 17-35, Nikkor 18-35 (or my personal favourite) - the 17-35 f/2.8 AF-S?

This is the question I always like to ask when I see someone trying to spend someone else's money ;)
 
puddleduck said:
Its a decent enough shot, but its 21mm, and stopped down, and definately didn't need VR.. so... :D

Did it need a £1k lens to take this? Could not have have done this shot with a Tamron 17-35, Nikkor 18-35 (or my personal favourite) - the 17-35 f/2.8 AF-S?

This is the question I always like to ask when I see someone trying to spend someone else's money ;)
Click to expand...

Oh come Andy, thats hardy in the TP spirit of "what excuse can I find to buy new toys" :D

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