New Nikon Lens Rebates – Up to $400 Off

You are going to like this. Each time Nikon did a rebates program for its lenses, one had to buy a DSLR body first to take advantage of the savings. It has really been a while, but not this time. The savings range from a welcome $20 for the AF-S 50mm f/1.8G lens all the way to frankly impressive $400 for the likes of AF-S 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G VR. More than that, there are a total of 15 lenses that are part of the rebates program. The offer expires on the 1st of March.

Told you you’d like this!

Nikon Lens Rebates

The Lenses

Here is the full list of lenses that are in the rebates program:

1) Fixed Focal Length Lenses

2) Zoom Lenses

Camera and Lens Bundle Rebates

The above mentioned rebates are likely the ones you’ll be most happy about, because Nikon rarely offers savings just for lenses alone. That is not to say camera and lens bundle rebates are somehow unwelcome, are they? So if you were looking to purchase not only a new lens, but also a new camera body, Nikon again offers you a chance to save some money (this offer expires on the 1st of March, too). Click here or the image further down to go to Nikon Buy Together and Save page on B&H.

Nikon Camera and Lens Bundle Savings

Comments

  1. 1
    ) Shawn Young
    February 9, 2014 at 7:24 am

    Yes, you told me I’d like this. You’re wrong. Not much to get excited about here.

    No D-glass. No teles. Precious few pro primes. If there are TCs/flashes, I don’t see them. USA only, which means a song-and-dance smuggle job for the rest of us.

    I guess it’s good if you’re US-based and you were preparing to buy anyway, but these deals aren’t going to turn somebody who wasn’t already buying into a purchaser.

    Last year’s set was useful. This year’s lens-only rebates are much ado about nothing.

    • February 9, 2014 at 8:00 am

      Shawn,

      I think asking Nikon to do monstrous rebates on *all* the most wanted lenses is a bit.. greedy. They are interested in earning money, after all :) And it makes complete sense that not everyone is going to find these rebates tempting. But plenty of photographers surely will (at least one of our readers already has). There are some great lenses in that list.

      • 4
        ) Shawn Young
        February 9, 2014 at 8:39 am

        Romanas,

        I don’t recall writing that I expected monstrous rebates on every lens. Perhaps you can point out where I said that.

        There are indeed rebates people can choose to save with here, but only if you were both planning to buy the lens already and you are living in America. Without knowing any one photographer’s individual needs, the 28/1.8, 105-micro, 24-120, and 80-400 look like the best offers.

        But there’s not one offer here that changes a person’s mind from “Wow, I can’t afford that” to “Wow, I’m buying it”. And if you compare this year’s list of offers to last year’s list, it’s pathetic. (If you forget, go on, dig last year’s list out. The one with the 24/35/85 1.4, the high-quality zooms, the TCs, and flashes.)

        I’ll give you the last word–and I won’t call you names.

        • February 9, 2014 at 9:23 am

          Shawn,

          if that’s the game, I did not accuse you of expecting monstrous rebates. ;) Truth is, there is always someone who will be disappointed, because we all have different needs. And these rebates that we post, sadly, are pretty much always only valid in America. I live in Europe. Our prices are much, much higher and I’ve never seen anything even close to these savings where I live. Not once. I got used to it. And I completely agree with the list you provided (but would also add the 16-35mm lens as one of the best offers). And I also agree that last year’s list was better. But that was a *year* ago. A long time. So, I think even these rebates that you can take advantage of without having to buy a camera is a big deal. Even if you haven’t found anything for your particular needs, a lot of people will have, and that’s good.

          Thank you for being so gracious and not calling me names. :) Have a good day!

        • 18
          ) Ravi R
          February 9, 2014 at 1:30 pm

          I find Nikon’s rebates more enticing and these are products that are made with intense expertise and skill and technology. Compared to Apple’s rebates ( FIVE to TEN Dollars!!!) which are ridiculous considering the cheap components encased in shiny aluminum, I would take Nikon’s rebate anyway.

          I should know because I have a 27 inch iMac with a very inferior LG screen that has yellow tint and flickering all over

          • 41
            ) Mack Rockwell
            February 10, 2014 at 12:31 pm

            Ravi!!!! Oh you forgot D600

            • 42
              ) Ravi R
              February 10, 2014 at 4:05 pm

              So what? Their rebates are still at least in the hundreds of dollars aren’t they?

              Apple has lot of faulty products! Remember the infamous “you are holding the phone wrong!”? And their rebates are like 10 – 50 dollars!

              And that was my whole point!

  2. 2
    ) Nikonwaddy
    February 9, 2014 at 7:29 am

    I knew this had to be coming as I think they did about this about the same time last year. Also it seems Nikon made it easy for me to make a decision on which lens to buy. I had been torn between the 24-70 f2.8 and the 24-120g f4 vr. Both great lenses according to this and other sites but as I already have a 70-200g f4 vr some of my range was being duplicated and that was a sticking point for me. If I read this right, it looks like the 24-70 f2.8 is not going to rebated, so problem solved..the 24-120 is going in my bag.

  3. 6
    ) Cristhal
    February 9, 2014 at 9:28 am

    Does this only work in USA or worlwide?

  4. 7
    ) jasmine
    February 9, 2014 at 10:06 am

    :(…. Sad this doesn’t apply to Canada.

  5. 8
    ) JD
    February 9, 2014 at 10:14 am

    And they do this the day AFTER I got my new 28mm f1.8…….ARRRRGH. Just tried it out and I am very satisfied though.

  6. 9
    ) Shawn Young
    February 9, 2014 at 10:21 am

    Romanas writes above that he thinks the 16-35 is a very worthy bargain. We note that Nasim also reviews this lens quite thoroughly and very favourably. Summary page here:
    http://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-16-35mm-f4g-vr/6

    Unfortunately PL doesn’t seem to have any user reviews yet, and that’s why I’m posting. Does anybody else have personal experience with this lens?

    I ask because I haven’t seen “expert” reviews diverge so much lately on a medium/high-priced piece of glass. There are other sites that like this lens (they do not write as well and clearly as Nasim, just stick with his positive review as the sample), there are sites like Photozone that say “well, it’s OK, but not value for money”) and there are sites like Lenstip who vomit all over it.

    What I’m trying to figure out is what is yielding such disparate test results. Is it a lens that exposes differences in people’s testing methodologies and/or artistic preferences? Is there serious copy-to-copy variance? (My Sigma 8-16 is infamous for copy variance–my copy happens to be a winner.) Is it something else?

    So I’d really be interested in owners’ views. Cheers.

    • February 9, 2014 at 10:28 am

      Shawn,

      that is actually a very good point that you are making. I also noticed how different the reviews are and especially that of Lenstip when it was published. I am not a fan of that site, I must say, but I found their results very strange and sent a link to Nasim some time ago. I will ask him to get back to you on this one. I know his testing methodology is different from others sites. Perhaps he’ll be able to explain the diversity.

    • February 9, 2014 at 1:59 pm

      Shawn, something very important you have to keep in mind when looking at any lens reviews on the Internet, including mine:
      1) The size of the chart and the lens to chart distance. For wide-angle lenses, this one is of extreme importance. Not to nitpick on LensTip, but I believe their chart sizes are very small. For Imatest measurements to work consistently, one has to fill the frame with the chart. Now if you have a chart that is say 20 inches in size, can you imagine how close the Nikon 16-35mm f/4G VR lens would have to be to the chart? Just look at the size of your monitor, take a wide angle lens you have and try to fill the frame on a full-frame sensor. See how close you got to the screen? Would you now say that it would be unrealistic to test a lens at such close distances? Well, ultra-wide angle lenses are normally not optimized for such small test charts and they must be measured with gigantic test charts to be somewhat valid. I discussed this issue with the man I respect the most out of all testers on the Internet – and that’s Roger Cicala, who told me a funny story about wanting to paint a test chart on a building to be able to test lenses at infinity or wide-angles further away than several feet. As funny as that may sound, but that would yield much more realistic results than shooting a small test chart in a lab environment. Both Roger’s and my largest test charts measure 74 inches in width, which is the largest you can get from Imatest directly (printed on high quality paper at highest resolution, inkjet). Even that size is not large enough to measure most lenses under 35mm! So whenever you see a review of a wide angle lens with some numbers attached to it, please do take it with a LOT of grain of salt, including mine. Simply put, it is not practical to test wide angle lenses with typical test charts. A much better methodology would be to test wide lenses at mid-range distances and infinity (which is far more realistic, given that you practically never shoot landscapes at minimum focus distances) – and those tests are impossible to conduct on standard charts. The only way to do it would be by using an optical bench, which gets extremely expensive and impractical for most reviewers out there.
      2) Sample variation. While this one is tough to address, reviewers should do their best to test multiple lenses to showcase the potential of a lens. Limiting reviews to a single sample is often a bad idea, because there is a LOT of sample variation, especially on lenses that have been used (as far as I know, Photozone often tests “contributed” lenses and not always brand new samples, which is a big problem, since lenses do vary with use overtime). Now getting multiple samples is not easy and not something one could do all the time, especially when the lens is rare and expensive, like the Nikon 800mm f/5.6E VR. However, it should be done to get a more meaningful picture. I typically request multiple copies of a lens when doing my reviews. If it is not possible, I will test a lens sample, then request another one when reviewing a different lens (I always do it for lens comparisons). I will then go back and re-shoot with the second lens sample. If my results get better, I update my charts based on the result (many of the reviews have been updated as a result and will most likely be continuously updated in the future). The 16-35mm f/4G Imatest chart I have is based on 3 lenses. All three varied in performance (which is normal), and one showed very poor performance (a lemon). Had I published my lemon sample results, I would have said that the lens is a disaster! Or if I had tested with a very small test chart, I would have been much more frustrated with the lens and its corner performance! That’s one thing about small test charts – the smaller they are, the worse the corners will look, especially with lenses that suffer from field curvature. When I tested the new 58mm f/1.4G lens with a small test chart, its corners looked horrendous. When I did a test on my 74 inch test chart, the corners were not nearly as bad! So focus distance and sample variation are extremely important.
      3) Test methodology. This one is a huge part of the debate. Why do my numbers look different than Photozone’s or Cicala’s or LensTip’s? Why aren’t their numbers similar? Well, that’s because there are too many variables that come into play, including the camera that was used to test (Imatest measures camera + lens combination), lighting environment, test chart size / distance, chart calibration, white balance, JPEG or RAW, RAW interpretation, applied sharpening, areas of analysis, focusing methodology, etc. – too many to list. And each reviewer will pick these depending on their own judgement. So if you look at my result and then Cicala’s and see a 20% difference in corner performance, then the variable could be the area of the chart that Cicala used in his measurements, a different sample or a myriad of other variables. That’s why the best thing to do is to look at multiple reviews and see if you can draw a conclusion from it. If out of 5 people 4 say that the lens is good and one says that it is terrible, then you know that the one probably had a bad sample or a bad testing methodology.
      4) Lastly, sometimes I tell my readers to just disregard the stupid numbers and just look at images and my feedback that come with them. Some lenses perform sub-par in test lab and it means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. In my experience, Zeiss and Leica lenses (with the exception of a few) typically yield pretty average numbers when testing in a lab. That’s because both care less about what their lenses do in a lab environment. The German glass is amazing and it renders superb, clear and beautiful colors. Japanese glass mostly comes with a slight tint of blue or magenta and it is in the character of glass used inside lenses. As one of my good friends once said, “you just cannot compete with a 150+ year legacy of making glass”! All German companies, whether Leica, Schneider or Zeiss, use the SAME glass manufactured by one huge company (can’t remember its name, but it is very well known in Germany). Their glass is pristine, clear of color tints and their coating technologies are top notch. Japanese, Chinese and other glass just cannot compare in quality to German glass – they all have their color tint in glass, which becomes the “character” of lenses. Now if you take many German lenses and put them face to face against Japanese lenses, the latter will often yield better sharpness numbers. But sharpness is NOT everything! There is a reason why people love shooting with Leica and Zeiss lenses. The “character” of images and their rendering is very different compared to consumer grade lenses made by Nikon, Canon, Panasonic, etc. That’s what people pay the premium for – exceptionally beautiful colors, depth and a certain unique character. Not something you would get from cheapo plastic consumer grade mass market lenses…

      That’s why when testing lenses, I try not to focus too much on sharpness alone and talk about other characteristics, handling, weather sealing, etc. I would never want to become a test lab like DxO/Photozone/Lenstip, where all you get is a bunch of numbers and very little appreciation of the craftsmanship and other features of a lens. When testing a lens, I shoot with it, often professionally and for my own pleasure to see what I like and what I don’t. I don’t just go outside to take pictures of brick walls and boring subjects just to come back with an image or two. I have done that in the past and I never want to do it again.

      As for the 16-35mm, I think the best thing for you is to look at user feedback of people that actually OWN and use the lens. I feel that you will find a lot more positive feedback and beautiful imagery rather than “that lens is terrible in the corners with 25% deviation from middle-frame performance” type of language. Lastly, you are always more than welcome to take one for a test spin and see how it works out for you – B&H and other resellers have a 30 day return policy. If you don’t like it, just return it – there are plenty of alternatives on the market.

      I apologize for a very lengthy response, but I hope it clears some stuff up. At some point (when I have extra time), I want to write a separate article about all this and my testing methodologies (which I am still enhancing and modifying). Have a great rest of the weekend!

      • 20
        ) Shawn Young
        February 9, 2014 at 2:52 pm

        Nasim,

        Thank you for your considered and considerate reply. I understand what you are saying.

        My only quibble would be with 4). Specifically, I agree that sharpness isn’t everything. For sure. But I am always a little bit wary of “look at the images!” reviews because I expect that there is less of the lens and more of the photographer’s skill coming into the frame. In short, I’m guessing that you and the other regular contributors on this site could be “stuck” with a D3000 and kit lens for a week, at a wedding, in the wild, whatever, and still come up with plenty of images good enough to sell. I’m not saying everything needs to be a brick wall, but consciously or subconsciously, people’s skill (or lack thereof) distorts “look at the images” reviews far more than any spherical element ever would. Your skill on this site, and its predecessor, is beyond question.

        Aside: I thought Zeiss’ lenses were made by Cosina in Japan. My ZF.2 15/2.8 is made in Japan.

        • February 9, 2014 at 3:28 pm

          This is becoming an increasingly interesting discussion. :) I would like to add a bit to the point 4) that Nasim made. You are indeed correct, one skilled enough can pull off capturing great images even with the cheapest of gear, especially by adapting to particular strengths of those tools and de-emphasizing their weaknesses. Yes. But what I think Nasim partly meant was looking at the images themselves rather than the numbers. In other words, instead of relying on Imatest, take a full-size JPEG or RAW captured with that lens in a specific situation where you would use that lens (not a brick wall) and analyze it performance with your own eyes. See if you like how it renders the image, see if you think the sharpness is enough for your needs, for you personally.

          Other than that, I do agree with you, mostly. Just looking at small, web-sized images is not good enough. But if the person that provided the images also shares his (even if subjective) opinion on the lens’ performance and you trust that person, the “look at the images” reviews can be very informative. It is the best when one can complement technical data with proper photography, or vice versa.

          As for Zeiss’ lenses, they are made by Cosina in Japan, but I believe Zeiss supplies some the more important elements, such as optics themselves, because no matter who puts the lenses together, they must follow those high standards of the German manufacturer. After all, Cosina is who builds the lenses, Zeiss still designs them. I would be very surprised if that was not the case and should someone have more knowledge on the subject, it would be curious to learn.

          • February 9, 2014 at 3:56 pm

            Yes, that’s correct – Cosina simply assembles the Zeiss-designed lenses. All optics are provided from Germany.

        • 22
          ) Volker Sellmann
          February 9, 2014 at 3:30 pm

          Unless I’m mistaken, the German version of your lens would be about twice the price.

        • February 9, 2014 at 3:55 pm

          Shawn, yes, you are absolutely right – those images certainly depend on the photographer’s skill and can vary from photographer to photographer. But then, isn’t that the reason why you want to check out a review? Is it purely based on technical specifications, or do you look at images as well as the technical info to make a conclusion? I trust that it is the latter. Too much technically moves away from photography and just imagery only highlights the skill of the photographer. Which is why I like to do both, whenever possible.

          In regards to Zeiss, whether it is made by Zeiss or Cosina, both use the same German-made glass and German engineering/design. Nikon also makes lenses in Thailand, China and Indonesia, but it does not mean that their quality is much worse than those made in Japan, as they all adhere to the same quality standards. And mostly those are assembly facilities anyway, which means that parts are supplied from all over the world.

      • 23
        ) Randall
        February 9, 2014 at 3:44 pm

        The 16-35mm has a very special character look in the photos. Its something to do with the way its designed. Photos from that lens pop more then they do from the 18-35mm and thats straight out of the camera. Also the sunstars it creates are gorgeous. If you look at any night photos from that camera with lights in them they look better then any other lens I have seen at night. On the flip side I don’t think its the best for taking pictures of people but all these lens seem to have some sort of sweet spot.

      • 34
        ) Patrick Downs
        February 9, 2014 at 7:36 pm

        Nasim: You are awesome! It’s great of you not only to make the effort to do these tests well, but to share in detail what you’ve learned and to reply to our comments.

        You make a great point about the intangibles on lenses, which is something the Leica glass has. I remember when one famous photog decided to test Leica SLRs against his Nikons in the 80s. He shot only Kodachrome (it might have been Pete Turner, or Eric Meola?),and he said when he put the chromes on the lightbox there was no contest … the Leica images just popped and had something special, including contrast (which is a component of sharpness). I’m not sure if he switched, but I can testify to the same experience with Leica M glass… so special. So expensive! The only glass I’ve ever used that was as good was for the Mamiya 6 and 7. Again, rangefinder lenses, because they have an advantage in design over SLR lenses. I think this is why many of the Fuji X lenses are getting rave reviews.

        There are so many variables now, and post production and camera technique is arguably just as important, that getting spun out about a 5-10% “improvement” in lens quality is, well, like the question “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” The color rendering of lenses is something you’re going to correct anyway, to your taste.

        I like corner to corner sharpness, as little barrel and other distortion as possible, and ruggedness and reliability. I need to take a closer look at some of the Zeiss glass, which some rave about. I am happy with my Nikon glass overall, the 24-70 is very good, as are my old primes, and the 70-200/2.8 is stellar. I know the 14-24 is too, but the 16-35 has strengths that make it better for me maybe.

        • February 9, 2014 at 8:30 pm

          Thank you Patrick! Give the 16-35mm a try and see how it works out. If you are not happy, try out the 14-24mm next. If you were here in Colorado, I would have given you mine to try out and see which one you want to keep! The VR on the 16-35mm is very useful for all kinds of stuff, including video. Wish Nikon started including VR on all of its new lenses, even wide angle primes!

          • 43
            ) filomena
            February 12, 2014 at 2:59 pm

            Nasim,

            This question is for you. It is in regards to lenses. My husband was generous enough to purchase a nikon 24-70mm lens after listening to me talk about it so much. Once I got the lens and saw how BIG and heavy it is as well as the high cost, I realized I made a mistake in asking for it, especially since I am NOT making any money with it. I saw that you just sold one of yours for 1500.00 and I am thinking about selling mine too. I would need about 1500.00 to break even on this lens. It is almost new and in perfect condition. The question I have for you is: I have a D700 nikon camera, a 50mm lens, an 85mm lens and a 70-210mm f/4.5 lens. If I can sell the 24-70mm which lens would you suggest I buy in place of it. I, like your wife am petite. Would it be better to buy a 24 or 35mm fixed lens or the 16-35mm. I am so confused and I do not want to make another mistake buying the wrong lens. I like what I have read on your blogs and I trust your suggestions. I am not a professional photographer, I just love photography.

            thank you,

            filomena

            • February 12, 2014 at 3:09 pm

              Filomena, my wife hates my 24-70mm for that reason :) Looks like you need something wider and I understand that the 24-70mm is just too big and heavy for you. The 16-35mm is definitely much lighter and smaller, but then it is also wider. Since the rebate on that lens is superb right now, I would suggest to get that lens instead of another prime. While primes are amazing and I love shooting with them, they are often just not wide enough and in some cases you cannot move back and forth to frame your shot when shooting landscapes or architecture.

    • 31
      ) Vlad
      February 9, 2014 at 6:31 pm

      Shawn, a lot has been said regarding your question in this post. I will provide a very simple answer to your originally asked question. I own Nikon’s 14-24 and use it A LOT (I shoot D800). I then ordered a 16-35 to try it out (as I was deciding what I should do regarding filters). So I was comparing 16-35 to my 14-24. I did not like it at low F stops – the corners were pretty bad. Of course I tried only one copy and returned it. I think it also depends on how/what you shoot. I use my wide angle mostly for close-up shots (to isolate and exaggerate my subject) while trying to achieve sharpness across the entire frame. In those cases where wide angle is used to take everything in almost at infinity, I think 16-35 will be fine. Of course, this is my personal opinion, so as Nasim rightly states, take it with a grain of salt. Best way is to always try it yourself.

  7. 11
    ) Volker Sellmann
    February 9, 2014 at 11:18 am

    Nikon is really beginning to tick me off by never including Canada with these rebate programs.

    • 12
      ) jasmine
      February 9, 2014 at 11:31 am

      Volker,

      I’m looking into ways on how we can take advantage of it. There’s a website called Kinek, been trying to do research. But I do agree they should be including Canada with these rebates as I’m sure we spend just as much money as the Americans do on their products.

    • 17
      ) Patrick O'Connor
      February 9, 2014 at 1:11 pm

      I could be wrong, and usually am, but I think these kinds of sales are region-specific. (i.e. Nikon USA decided to have a sale but Nikon Canada/Nikon Europe/etc. did not.) If that isn’t the case, I feel your pain. Not really…I live in the US. ;-)

  8. 13
    ) Mark
    February 9, 2014 at 12:08 pm

    Hi Romanas

    A half year ago I recommended you to use THIS goodlooking photo of you as avatar instead of the old one with the glases. You did not respond, maybe it was too personally.

    Nevertheless the advise seems to have had an effect on you, compliments mostly do, and I’m happy you use now this beneficial photo.

    Thanks for your good reviews,
    Mark

    • February 9, 2014 at 12:11 pm

      Mark, actually, you and one other person had much influence in this decision. :) But only recently did I finally manage to work out my gravatar account and change the photograph. Thank you!

  9. February 9, 2014 at 12:25 pm

    The 16-35 is very appealing at this price, but I still gravitate to the 14-24 because of its superior optical performance. Hmmmmm… what to do?!

    I see the advantages of the 16-35: takes filters, has VR, less $$, good focal length range.

    The 14-24 lures me because: it’s sharp beyond belief with little distortion (bad on the other lens @ 16mm), slightly wider, f/2.8 (better at night, on a tripod, where faster max aperture is more valuable than VR for night sky/landscape work). The 14-24 + D800 = superb quality files.

    • February 9, 2014 at 4:05 pm

      Patrick, the 14-24mm is amazing glass. I own one and it always amazes me on the D800E. It does have its issues, but it is still a stellar piece of optic. The biggest downside is filters, but those that really want the lens have been buying the expensive filter systems to go with it. The 16-35mm is also a superb lens and it is obviously a much more economical solution in comparison. Its biggest strengths are filter thread and VR – very useful in low light situations. Plus, it is much lighter and more versatile in terms of focal length/zoom range. I guess it all depends on your needs. At this rebate price, the 16-35mm is a much better deal in comparison…

      The 16-35mm is a little weak in the corners, but once you stop it down, it gets very good. Distortion and other optical issues can be corrected in post. Overall, the 16-35mm is much less hassle than the 14-24mm, so it would work great for most of us out there in my opinion. I recommend the 16-35mm 90% of the time. Unless the photographer wants absolute sharpness edge to edge at large apertures and does not mind spending a lot of $$$ on a large filter system, the 16-35mm makes a lot more sense.

      • 32
        ) Patrick Downs
        February 9, 2014 at 7:01 pm

        Thanks Nasim. It’s often a trade-off making these choices, isn’t it? If I were strictly a landscape and/or architecture-interiors photog, the choice would be 100% clear: 14-24mm. But I’m not!

        The expensive filter arrangement for the 14-24 more than doubles the cost vs the 16-35. Since I shoot more reportage and photojournalism, having a filter on the front of the 16-35 (via threads) is better, and having VR and gaining 2-3 lower shutter speeds with it negates the fact that it’s an f/4 and would be helpful The VR would be very nice for video too, I assume (Yes?).

        For landscapes or interiors you’re shooting usually at f/8 or smaller, and as you say the 16-365 gets better there. The only time the 2.8 would be really good… night skies, where the ideal exposure seems to often be 20-30 secs @ f2.8 @ ISO1600. Avoiding going to 3200 is nice when possible.

        I think you’ve tilted me in the direction of the 16-35! I was on a schooner in a race and having something wider than 24mm would have been great… http://patrickdowns.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/Wooden-Boat-Festival-2013-Port-Townsend-WA/G0000Hla3Ma6c8QU/I0000R645ZhaTHps/C00005lahg1IzPl4

        Thanks! -PD

        • 33
          ) Patrick Downs
          February 9, 2014 at 7:02 pm

          not 16-365! oops :)

        • 35
          ) Patrick Downs
          February 9, 2014 at 7:57 pm

          Here’s a comment from a B&H customer:

          Go ahead, DO IT.
          By Nate
          Verified Buyer
          Go ahead and waste your time reading all the reviews on the Internet comparing this lens to the 14-24 and the 17-35. Side-by-side you would never be able to tell the difference between this lens and the 14-24. To see any difference at all you would have to print your photos 5 feet wide, then, you still wouldn’t see any difference. Don’t worry about sharpness, this lens is sharp even wide open on FX. In my opinion, the weakest focal length is 16 mm, but trust me, it’s not weak. At F4 you’ll see a slight bit of falloff in the corners at the wider focal lengths. Don’t worry about Bokeh this is a super wide lens, that doesn’t matter at all. Chromatic aberration is very well controlled. Okay, but you’ve heard there is some problems with distortion, you know, the mustache distortion that some people are talking about on the Internet. I agree it does have a huge amount of complex distortion at 16 mm. So what. Postprocessing is a fact of life since film. And with the software that is available now, even cheaply, complex distortion is no problem whatsoever, so don’t worry about it. I use a program called PT lens. It works as an external editor with lightroom. PT Lens has a profile for most lenses including this one. The test results that I did taking a picture of the garage door at 16 mm and then processing the PT lens made a perfectly flat field photo. Not that you would need to, but you can also batch process from Lightroom to PT Lens. Just do whatever color corrections that are necessary first, then light room outputs to PT lens in the TIF format. I have owned $5000 Nikon glass, I’ve tested probably 30 different lenses in my time and this one is one of the best I’ve seen.

          • 36
            ) Patrick Downs
            February 9, 2014 at 8:01 pm

            And another

            My New Favorite Walk-Around UWA Zoom
            By sgtmoody
            About Me Photo Enthusiast

            I just want to start off this review by saying that I absolutely love this lens. I have the 14-24 f/2.8 as well for architectural use. When I purchased the 14-24, I thought I would also use it for landscape; like many before me, however, the ridiculous sharpness of that lens could not overcome the fact that the zoom range is extraordinarily limited.

            Enter the 16-35 f/4, which has been my go-to for landscape as of late. There is quite the difference between 14 and 16, but in most cases, I haven’t really noticed it too much. However, the added ability to use the 24-35 range without having to switch out lenses has been huge in situations.

            Another thing you will immediately notice is that this lens is MUCH better at avoiding flare. With the 14-24, you have to exercise extreme caution, since the lens will flare up even when there are intense light sources that are behind you (especially noticeable if you have the sun slightly behind you: you will still get flare with that lens).

            Yet another benefit of this lens is the fact that it has VR. You may be skeptical about the usages of VR at such wide angles, but I’ll tell you that – thanks to VR – I have been able to get sharp images at 1 second HANDHELD. That was not a typo: one full second, handheld. This is obviously not a replacement for a tripod, but in those squeeze situations where you don’t want to lug around a tripod on your back for an entire day, the VR can be a life-saver.

            However, the biggest advantage of this lens BY FAR is the fact that it takes 77mm filters. The 14-24 always feels like a baby out in the open because of that ridiculously large (~152mm or so?) bulbous front element that almost juts out beyond the attached hood. This lens, on the other hand, feels well-protect, with its recessed front element, and allows you to put filters in front for protection or creativity. If you shoot with ANY kind of filters and don’t want to blow hundreds for a Lee filter holder for the 14-24, this seals the deal in favor of the 14-24.

            Other than that, this lens is plenty sharp enough and is very well-suited towards landscape and the quick group photo. Distortion is there, but you can correct it in post fairly easily. I am extremely glad that I purchased this lens and recommend you purchase one too.

            • 40
              ) Carlo
              February 10, 2014 at 3:07 am

              Assuming that 14-24 is the best lens and 16-35 too, what about the new 18-35 G lens? Nasim tested 18-35 and seems it is good as 16-35. Comparing the prices it’s worth it.
              Did someone try it? Yes it is not a professional grade lens but it could deliver excellent results (I’m looking for a Sharp lens from edge to edge).

    • 29
      ) Matts Balgard
      February 9, 2014 at 4:20 pm

      There is no given answer to this. You summed up the pros and cons and you just have to decide for yourself which features are most important to you. I pondered the same question and ended up choosing the 16-35 in the end. So far, I am very apply with it. VR and the somewhat more useful zoom range were the main deciding aspects for me.

    • February 9, 2014 at 8:15 pm
  10. 16
    ) Carlo
    February 9, 2014 at 12:59 pm

    I’ve never seen a rebate here in Italy! Anyhow now I’m confused if sigma 24-105 f/4 is better than Nikon 24-120 f/4 ….. with this insane rebate the prices are very close

  11. February 9, 2014 at 3:54 pm

    I like the deals. Got my 105 macro on the way and that 16-35 f/4 might find its way to me before this offer is over…emphasis on might. If so, that will round out a pretty good arsenal for me.

    It’s a lot of money to spend in less than a month, but I’m not sure how long it will be before another “lens only” rebate occurs.

    • February 9, 2014 at 4:08 pm

      JA,

      I am very glad. :)

    • 45
      ) Carol
      February 28, 2014 at 5:56 pm

      Just made the second purchase. Ordered the 105 micro early in the month and order edthe 16-35 just before B&H website shutdown. Spent two weeks going back and forth on the second purchase and went for it in the 11th hour. Both on back order, but they’ll get here soon enough. The rebate pushed me over the edge on the second purchase. Guess it will be a long time before I see the inside of a restaurant or make any other not needed purchases!

  12. 30
    ) Richard Weber
    February 9, 2014 at 4:40 pm

    Romanas- thanks so much for the heads up. Had just purchased a 80-400 vr and your email prompted me to ask for the rebate which I think I will get. Even if it was only a credit towards other equipment that would be great. I hear there is something else coming down from Nikon in the next week. Know anything about that? r

Leave a Comment