Overview
While the Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR is a new generation lens in its own class, I will be reviewing it as a lens that is in a way replacing the older 17-35mm f/2.8D AF-S lens that was due for an update. In this review, I will be making direct comparisons between these two lenses, in addition to the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G and will do my best to provide a thorough analysis of this lens, along with image samples and comparisons against other Nikon lenses.
1) Lens Specifications
Main Features:
- Ultra wide-angle zoom lens that covers focal lengths from 16mm to 35mm
- Vibration Reduction (VR II) enables sharper pictures while shooting at shutter speeds up to four stops slower than would otherwise be possible
- The adoption of Nano Crystal Coat effectively reduces ghost and flare
- An ultra wide-angle zoom lens that, while offering a wide angle view of 107°, is compatible with 77mm screw-on filters
- Fixed maximum aperture of f/4
- ED glass and aspherical lens elements are utilized for a new optical design that achieves high resolution
- Quiet focusing with built-in Silent Wave Motor (SWM)
- Two focus modes selectable – M/A and M
Technical Specifications:
- Focal length: 16-35mm
- Maximum aperture: f/4
- Minimum aperture: f/22
- Lens construction: 17 elements in 12 groups (with two ED glass and three aspherical lens elements, and Nano Crystal Coat)
- Angle of view: 107° – 63° (83° – 44° with Nikon DX format)
- Closest focusing distance: 0.29 m (1.0 ft.) at a focal length of 16mm or 35mm, 0.28 m (0.9 ft.) at a focal length between 20mm and 28mm
- Maximum reproduction ratio: 0.25x
- No. of diaphragm blades: 9 (rounded)
- Filter/attachment size: 77mm
- Diameter x length (extension from the camera’s lens-mount flange): Approximately 82.5 x 125 mm
- Weight: Approximately 680 g/24.0 oz.
- Supplied accessories: 77mm Snap-on Front Lens Cap LC-77, Rear Lens Cap LF-1, Bayonet Hood HB-23, Flexible Lens Pouch CL-1120
2) Lens handling
Just like all Nikon professional lenses, the new Nikon 16-35mm VR lens is built to last a lifetime. While some parts of the lens are made of plastic, it feels just like the expensive Nikon lenses made of solid metal. It is designed to withstand tough weather and is well-protected on the outside against dust and moisture. It has a total of 17 optical elements within the lens and weighs a total of 680 grams, making it very easy to carry and handle. Compared to the Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8D lens, it is a little longer in size (see the comparison below) and 65 grams lighter in weight. The lens feels very solid in hands and the zoom ring is easy to rotate from 16 to 35mm and vice versa (it goes from 16 to 35mm in a half turn). Just like on the Nikon 17-35mm, the focus ring is conveniently located on the front of the lens, making it easy to reach it with fingers for manual focus. Just like the 17-35mm, the lens does not extend in/out when zooming. The lens comes with the same “HB-23″ lens hood as in 17-35mm.
Nikon 24-70mm, Nikon 16-35mm, Nikon 17-35mm
Nikon 24-70mm, Nikon 16-35mm, Nikon 17-35mm - No Hood
3) Focus acquisition speed and accuracy
I have tested this lens for a while and took it with me along with the 17-35mm on multiple trips and I found the autofocus performance to be instant and accurate, even in low-light conditions. The lens autofocus system with SWM (Silent Wave Motor) is quiet and very close to the performance of the superb Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G. My real tests were done in very dim environments and focus was acquired correctly almost 100% of the time on an FX body. Here is a good example of how the lens focuses in an extremely dark environment:
Nikon 16-35mm f/4.0 VR, 1/10 @ f/4.0, ISO 3200
Click here to see the full JPEG version of the shot (80% Quality @ 3,8 MB).
As can be seen from the picture, the lighting conditions were extremely poor – I had to shoot at 1/10th of a second at ISO 3200 to get the right exposure. The lens focused fast and dead-on, wide open at f/4.0.
4) Lens sharpness and contrast
I won’t talk much about lens sharpness – you can see the image samples in the next several pages. One thing I will say, however, is that this lens is one of the sharpest lenses I have ever held in my hands – I was stunned by its performance. This lens performs so well at f/4.0 in the center throughout the zoom range, that you wouldn’t want to shoot it at higher apertures, unless you need to increase the depth of field. Corners on the wide end are a little soft, but still better than on the 17-35mm. Color and contrast are truly amazing and top of the class.
Inside the Restaurant - 16mm, 1/25 @ f/4.0, ISO 3200
5) Vibration Reduction – VR II
As I have pointed out before, the Nikon 16-35mm VR is Nikon’s (and World’s) first ultra wide-angle lens with a vibration reduction (VR) technology. Back in the old days, it did not make much sense to put VR into ultra wide lenses, because vibration is not as big of an issue on short focal lengths compared to long/telephoto focal lengths. Plus, it was expensive to add VR on professional lenses, due to the already complex lens optics and design. By adding VR to an ultra wide-angle lens, Nikon is setting a new standard in lens technology and we will be soon seeing many other manufacturers add this very useful feature to their line of ultra wide lenses as well. VR proved itself effective on consumer “wide to tele” lenses such as Nikon 18-200mm VR and it was just a matter of time until Nikon started adding VR to its professional line.
The new vibration reduction system (VR II) on the Nikon 16-35mm f/4.0 VR is truly amazing. I have never been able to produce a sharp hand-held shot at 1/2 of a second on a wide-angle lens and I was able to get quite a few good shots even at a shutter speed of 1 second @ 16mm! Zooming in to 35mm makes it a little difficult, but even then I was able to get good results at 1/4 – 1/8th of a second. Take a look at this shot:
Nikon 16-35mm f/4.0 VR, 1/3 @ f/4.0, ISO 3200
Unbelievable! Tack sharp at 1/3th of a second hand-held! Good luck trying the same on the Nikon 17-35mm!
Click here to get the full JPEG (80% Quality @ 1 MB). The new vibration reduction system really works and you can get some magical shots with this lens. Yes, wedding and event photographers will absolutely love this lens!
6) Bokeh
Just like many other ultra wide-angle lenses, this lens is not really designed to yield beautiful bokeh, due to its small maximum aperture and large depth of field. After doing a couple of test shots at 35mm f/4.0, I was actually pleasantly surprised by the quality of bokeh this lens is able to produce on the long end. Check out this image shot wide open at 35mm:
Nikon 16-35mm Bokeh
Not bad at all – bokeh looks round and pleasant to look at.
7) Vignetting
There is a heavy amount of vignetting present when shooting wide open (f/4.0) at 16mm, as seen below. Stopping down the lens to f/8.0 almost completely gets rid of it:
Much less vignetting visible at 24mm:
And at 35mm, it is almost gone:
The vignetting issues can be quickly corrected in Adobe Photoshop or Lightroom, so it is not a big problem.
8) Ghosting and Flare
Ghosting and flare are not an issue for this lens. I shot against bright light sources on multiple occasions and did not see any harsh flares or ghosting. Although both 16-35mm f/4.0 VR and 17-35mm f/2.8D share the same hood, one thing for sure – the “N” (Nano-Coating) glass inside the lens definitely helps, making it a good candidate to shoot against the sun.
Here is an extreme example of shooting directly at the sun:
9) Distortion
One of the things I noticed immediately, was the amount of distortion on the wide end of the lens. This is not unexpected, because we are dealing with a very short focal length that is prone to distortion, but it is definitely a lot more noticeable than on the Nikon 17-35mm at 17mm. Barrel distortion at 16mm goes away at 24mm and slightly comes back as pincushion distortion towards 35mm. When you use this lens for architectural work and for photographing textures and patterns, you can fix the distortion in Photoshop very easily by using the Lens Correction filter. At 16mm, values between +5 and +8 seemed to work pretty well for me.
Let’s now move on to the good stuff – Sharpness tests. Select the next page below.
Sharpness Test
Sharpness Test
Some technical junk:
- White Balance: Auto, changed to “Custom”: 3500 Temp, +19 Tint in Lightroom
- ISO: 200
- EXIF information is preserved in the images
- Lens was mounted on Nikon D700 FX Camera and Gitzo tripod
- Focusing was performed through Live-View Contrast Detect. After each successful focus acquisition, focus was switched to manual to prevent camera refocusing
- Mirror Lock-Up mode with Exposure Delay set to “On” and remote cable release to completely eliminate camera shake
- VR on the Nikon 16-35mm was set to “Off” position
- Long exposure NR: Off
- Image Format: RAW
- Lightroom settings: Default settings, but exposure had to be slightly adjusted (-.20 to +.033) to make sure that all images have the same brightness
- Lightroom export: sRGB JPEG Quality 80
- Testing was performed at f/4.0, f/5.6, f/8.0 and f/11.0 apertures
- Nothing was moved during testing
10) Sharpness Test – Nikon 16-35mm @ 16mm Center Frame
This lens performs INCREDIBLY well on all apertures @ 16mm in the center of the frame. I tried to compare the images and could not spot any difference.
11) Sharpness Test – Nikon 16-35mm @ 16mm Corner Frame
Far corners look a little soft at f/4.0 and there is visible vignetting, but it gets better at f/5.6 and beyond.
12) Sharpness Test – Nikon 16-35mm @ 24mm Center Frame
Again, the center of the frame is super sharp all the way from f/4.0 to f/11.0!
13) Sharpness Test – Nikon 16-35mm @ 24mm Corner Frame
The corners look very good at 24mm, even at the far end with a slight amount of vignetting at f/4.0.
14) Sharpness Test – Nikon 16-35mm @ 35mm Center Frame
This is getting boring! Center frame @ 35mm is as sharp as the other focal lengths throughout the aperture range.
15) Sharpness Test – Nikon 16-35mm @ 35mm Corner Frame
The first image at f/4.0 was a little dark due to vignetting, so I had to increase the exposure by +0.5 to match it with other images. Sharpness-wise, all images are the same and I cannot see any difference between them.
Lens Comparisons
Compared to Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8D
16) Nikon 16-35mm f/4.0G VR vs Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8D MTF
The MTF data charts from the Nikon 16-35mm f/4G and the older Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 suggest that the new Nikon 16-35mm has more contrast on both wide and telephoto side. The same is also true for sharpness and better handling of chromatic aberrations.
Nikon 16-35mm f/4.0 MTF:
Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 MTF:
Now let’s see how the lenses compared in my tests. Here is the center of the image at 17mm f/4.0:
The image on the left is Nikon 16-35mm VR and the image on the right is Nikon 17-35mm. The lenses start out almost identical in terms of performance at 17mm in the center. However, the situation is quite different in the corners, especially towards 35mm – that’s where the 16-35mm rips 17-35mm apart:
Wow, what a great performance by the Nikon 16-35mm VR! At large apertures, the Nikon 16-35mm is clearly better, both in contrast and sharpness. By f/8.0 and onwards the lenses perform about the same across the frame.
Compared to Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G
17) Nikon 16-35mm f/4.0G VR vs Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G
I decided to run another test comparison with a legendary lens – the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G, my favorite lens for landscape photography. I decided to test both lenses at 24mm and 35mm – the focal lengths I use the most for landscapes.
The lenses both perform extremely well in the center frame, so there is no point to provide sample images. Let’s see how the lenses compare at 24mm in the corners:
As you can see, the 16-35mm is sharper wide open than the 24-70mm stopped down to f/4.0.
And here is 35mm corner:
Corners are still sharper on the Nikon 16-35mm at 35mm.
Compared to Canon 17-40mm f/4.0
18) Nikon 16-35mm f/4.0G VR vs Canon 17-40mm f/4.0
I will be honest – doing a comparison between the Nikon 16-35mm f/4.0 and the Canon 17-40mm f/4.0 was somewhat painful. First of all, the DSLR bodies that I was using did not have the same megapixel count (Nikon D300 is 12 Mp and Canon 50D is 15 Mp) and crop factor (Nikon D300 is 1.5x and Canon 50D is 1.6x). Achieving the same field of view and having similarly sized 100% crops for accurate testing and comparison was difficult and I had to move my setup back and forth to get to a similar size. Even then, I was not able to get the results I wanted in the corners, so I will be focusing more on center performance rather than corners.
The image on the left is Nikon 16-35mm and the image on the right is Canon 17-35mm. Both were shot in RAW with no post-processing in Lightroom besides adjusting white balance.
Let’s take a look at the far corners @ 17mm f/4.0 (Left: Nikon 16-35mm, Right: Canon 17-40mm):
The Nikon 16-35mm clearly has both sharper image and better contrast in the corners.
Let’s now take a look at the center @ 17mm f/4.0 where I was able to match the view:
As can be clearly seen, Nikon 16-35mm f/4.0 VR is significantly sharper than Canon 17-40mm f/4.0. When compared at f/8.0 both lenses are very similar in terms of sharpness and contrast. Now let’s see the performance @ 24mm f/4.0:
Again, Nikon 16-35mm is the clear winner, delivering more sharpness wide open.
The final test is both lenses at 35mm:
As expected, there is no change – the Nikon 16-35mm f/4.0 is sharper than Canon 17-40mm f/4.0 @ f/4.0 across all focal lengths.
I did not bother uploading the images at other apertures, because both lenses perform very similarly at f/5.6 and higher and at f/8.0 there is practically no difference between them. The above test is to show that the Nikon 16-35mm is sharper than its counterpart Canon 17-40mm when shot wide open both in the center and in the corners.
Summary and Image Samples
19) Summary
Can I call this lens a breakthrough? Absolutely! As you can see from the sharpness comparison tests, the Nikon 16-35mm f/4.0 VR beats both the legendary Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8D and my favorite Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G, especially in the corners. The 17-35mm and the 24-70mm lenses have been known as some of the best Nikon zoom lenses ever produced and the new lightweight Nikon 16-35mm f/4.0 VR proved to be better than both wide open at f/4.0. As can be seen from my Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G Review, the Nikon 16-35mm is as sharp in the center and only weaker in the corners.
After weeks of testing the Nikon 16-35mm VR, I am very impressed with its performance and contrast. I do not see a reason to buy the more expensive Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8D anymore. Another big plus to the Nikon 16-35mm is Vibration Reduction, which truly does help when you shoot hand-held in dim environments. I took this lens for a real challenge and shot in very dark corners of Denver and VR worked beautifully, allowing me to shoot at extremely slow shutter speeds of 1/10th of a second and slower – something I have never been able to do with the 17-35mm or the 24-70mm lenses.
The lens is not without problems though. Although center sharpness is superb at all focal lengths and apertures, the corners are soft at 16mm f/4.0 on FX. Corners get a little better at smaller apertures and zooming in to 24mm+ yields much better results. Heavy distortion and vignetting are also a tad annoying, although they can be easily fixed in Photoshop. I bet this lens would have been twice the price if it did not have these issues. After shooting thousands of images with this lens, I am still very happy with the results and the above problems are barely noticeable in the field. If you are looking for a lens with a longer range to complement the Nikon 16-35mm, I highly recommend to look into the Nikon 24-120mm f/4.0 VR lens, which has very similar characteristics at an affordable price.
Shot with Nikon 16-35mm f/4.0 VR
20) Where to buy and availability
B&H is currently selling the Nikon 16-35mm f/4.0G ED VR lens and has it in stock. The Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 sells for approximately $1,800, Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 is $1,900 and the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 is $2,000, which makes the Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR the cheapest of the group, priced at $1,259 (as of 11/13/2012).
21) More image samples
Here are some sample images that I have captured during my last trip to Utah:
Click here to download the full version of the file in JPEG format (4.5 Mb).
Click here to download the full version of the file in JPEG format (5.2 Mb).
Click here to download the full version of the file in JPEG format (4.9 Mb).
All Images Copyright © Nasim Mansurov, All Rights Reserved. Copying or reproduction is not permitted without written permission from the author.
About Nasim Mansurov
but price is not democratic =))
vignetting is so fearable (есть такое слово ?) =)
Medvezhutka, if you consider the price to performance ratio, the price is actually not bad, especially when compared to the Nikon 17-35mm :)
As far as vignetting, I do agree that it is rather harsh on the wide end at f/4.0, but I would normally shoot this lens for landscape work between f/8.0 and f/11.0, and vignetting is not as bad on those apertures…
I’m more interested in doing some panoramas with this lens at 24-35mm @ f/8.0 and I will do a lot of testing this weekend. I will also shoot it with DX and see how it compares.
right, prise is not bad from some points of view =)
but on short end with a not good light (when you need to open aperture) you can forget about panorams. have i some mistake ?
Any thoughts why your conclusions are so apparently different from Photozone? There Klaus thought it was good, but not really much better than the Canon 17-40 which while fine, Canon users have been hoping would be replaced. In particular Klaus found that the corners and borders at 16mm and F4 where rather poor, and they took a lot of stopping down to recover to an acceptably level. He also though this was in line with Nikon’s mtf, so that rules out sample variation
David, thanks for stopping by!
I have just checked out the Photozone review of the lens and I have a few notes:
1) All of their tests were performed on a Nikon D3x body and mine were done on a D700, so there is a difference in resolution.
2) My tests are on par with Nikon’s MTF charts, which clearly show that the Nikon 16-35mm f/4.0 VR is better than the Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8D lens on both wide and telephoto ends.
3) Photozone’s MTF numbers look horribly bad and I believe they had a bad sample of the lens. If you read Nikon MTF numbers, the Nikon 16-35mm should perform incredibly well in the center and worse on the edges (but still better than 17-35mm).
4) I provide real image crops from the corners to prove my point and they only supply a chart. It would be nice to see some real image samples from their rigorous tests.
5) Both the Nikon 16-35mm and the Nikon 17-35mm lenses in my tests are brand new and have never been used before the tests. My 24-70mm has been heavily used and has some dust in the rear element of the lens, which could be the reason why I had a loss of contrast in the corners.
Please let me know if you have any questions and once again thanks for stopping by and reading my review!
Hi Nasim,
I think us Colorado folk are getting the good copies! I came to similar conclusions in my tests http://floggingkevin.com/2010/02/26/unofficial-review-nikon-16-35mm-f4n-vr/ although I had the 14-24 instead of the 17-35 to compare to.
Funny, I went to Utah last weekend. http://floggingkevin.com/2010/03/10/moab-to-denver-at-28-mph/ If you have good weather, and no boulders fall on the road, you should have a great time!
Kevin
Kevin, thanks for stopping by and leaving a comment. I’m in Moab right now (left on Thursday) and just came back from a really bad storm in Canyonlands. Hail + snow + rain + lightning, it was scary…
I have been shooting with the 16-35mm VR exclusively and for two days now and I love it! I will post some sample images as soon as I get back, but the contrast and sharpness of this lens is scary. I have taken some shots at 1/2 of a second @ 16mm that came out sharp! Corners look extremely good and vignetting is actually invisible at f/10 @ 16mm. So, I am pretty sure now that either something went wrong with Photozone’s tests, or their lens sample is bad.
It is unfortunate that your trip did not turn out so good. I’m planning to take I-70 coming back and hopefully it won’t be as bad. The weather for Monday seems to be promising, so I’m keeping my fingers crossed :)
P.S. The last picture of Park Avenue Trail looks great!
Thank you for the review. I’m not knocking photozone by any means; however, I find it interesting that most of the negative responses towards this lens on the net rarely include photos to back up and/or demonstrate the negative opinions. All of the test numbers really do not mean anything (good or bad) if one can not use the equipment to get nice photos. This is true of all equipment. I do not doubt that sample variations exist. That being said, every positive review of the lens I’ve seen typically has photos to back the opinion (as yours does). In the end, the quality of the photos is all that matters and a lens can only help so much. I don’t care what the “test numbers” are; all that matters is how well the equipment works for me. Thanks again for the review.
Randy, you are most welcome!
I’m currently in Utah and I have been shooting with this lens exclusively for the last 3 days. The sharpness and performance of the 16-35mm is outstanding, I am very impressed. I am now convinced that Photozone’s review is either flawed, they have a bad sample or performance on a sensor with a large resolution might not be as good. So far the lens has been working beautifully on both FX (D700) and DX (D300) sensors and the corner sharpness is not bad at all!
I will be posting some real samples from the lens as soon as I get back.
I just received mine. I haven’t had much of a chance to use it, besides taking goofy pictures of the dog. So far I like it. I am glad I purchased it. I spent way too much time deciding between a a used 17-35 and the 16-35. I’m glad I chose the 16-35. Thanks again for the review. It helped me make my decision.
Randy, congratulations with your purchase! It’s a good thing that you did not buy the 17-35mm, because it is clearly worse than the 16-35mm…
Would you mind to provide full image before crop.
So i can know which image part that you crop from.
I wanna buy this lens. So check lot of review around internet.
They said both very good & very bad performance.
I also check full size sample photo at photozone.
It look poor sharpness at edge at many focal length.
I think maybe they have sample variation problem for this lens
Thank you very much for your great review.
I will post some real image samples from the current photo shoot with the corner crop for you as soon as I get back (currently in Utah). So far, from the images that I have gotten, the corner sharpness on the 16-35mm is very good!
Nice review, thank you :-)
I’m wondering how much the vignetting (at wide say 17mm), is increased by the application of a slim cpl filter to the front of the lens?
Kevin, I have been shooting the 16-35mm with a non-slim B+W circular polarizer and I have not yet seen vignetting increase in my images yet. I will post my findings as soon as I get home (I’m currently in Utah).
Thank you for stopping by!
I’ve got a Hoya S-HMC UV filter (non-slim) on the front of mine. When I add my Hoya circular polarizer (non-slim) on top of the UV filter, I get slight vignetting at the wide end (16-18mm). I could obviously remove the UV filter if I was worried about the wide end vignetting. I would think two slim filters could be stacked without a problem. One slim would work for sure.
Randy, thank you for your feedback!
I tried both non-slim and slim filters and did not see much difference in vignetting. The vignetting I saw at 16mm is there even without a filter…there may be a very slight amount of vignetting added, but it is really not a big deal.
If I have a 50 1.8G and a 70-200VRII, do I need a 24-70 or would I be better off with the 16-35VR in that mix? I’m a wedding, portrait , and landscape photographer.
Other lens I own: 16 -85 DX , 35 1.8 DX and 105 Micro VR. Cameras: D200, D90, D7000, and D700.
Ron, since you have more DX than FX bodies, I would get the 16-35mm VR. For D700, the 24-70mm is excellent.
I’ll wait to see real sample. Thank you very much.
Lkunl, I posted three sample images from my last trip here. The review is also updated with these images. Check out the full resolution JPEGs and see for yourself :)
Thanks for the great review. Very thourough. Having the images to back up the comments is a bonus. I just got this lens myself for my D700 and am really looking forward to some landscape shots
Nev, you are most welcome! Thanks for stopping by and dropping a comment :)
Let me know how you like the 16-35mm!
Hi Nasim,
Thanks indeed for the review. This lens seems to be the “wide-angle” solution for my D700, I am fond of landscapes and do not buy 14-24 as use filters almost every time. On the other side I wonder how does a bokeh look like at 35 mm & f4.0 for close portraits. I do also like to shoot these weird wide-angle faces and if the lens have any pronounced bokeh at 35, that would be fantastic! I would be glad if you can post some examples as well. Thanks!
Alisher, you are most welcome! Thanks for reminding me to post a bokeh sample from this lens, since I completely forgot about it :)
Reload the page and you should see one sample shot at 35mm f/4.0. Bokeh looks great to me!
Nasim, thanks for updating “Bokeh” article! Image does also look great to me. So the decision is made, already looking forward to seeing this lens avl in Moscow! Hope to share nice pics with you in future!
PS: If you are interested, you can have a look at some of my photos including a couple from Uzbekistan here: http://www.photosight.ru/users/53538/
Alisher, sounds good!
I checked out your photos and you have some beautiful work. Keep up the good work and stay in touch!
Hi nasim,
What lense can u recommend me the 16-35mm or 14-24mm? both same performance about sharpness?my concern only the sharpness.
Bernie, if you do not need to use any filters, go with the 14-24mm f/2.8G.
Hi Nasim,
I want to start with saying thank you for all your review which help me a lot on deciding what to get and what the next upgrade.
currently i have D800 with 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8 and i tossing getting 14-24mm or 16-35mm for my ultra wide lens. currently i dont have special filter and never use one; but i saw people result with filter and looks great . Most of time i do pre-wedding,wedding , portrait and only once a while landscape . my question is how the performance and sharpness between that 2 lens? and is extra 2mm benefit a alot?
if you are doing weddings you maybe better off with a diag fish eye. you can get some really wonderful shots once you get use to using it in odd ways, ie shoot from the hip using your body to line up the shot and snap off three of four shots,
the 2mm’s is massive in a ultra ultra wide shot. but you will have to correct for distortion, the sharpness the 14-24 wins hands down, the 16-35 is good thou, it really boils down to do you need filters. if the answer is no, you can get around them or you do not mind hand holding them the 14-24 is the only way to go. if you need filters get the 16-35 your requirements will more than make up for the performance differences for your use.
i have a 14-24 in my wedding photo bag and i can count the number of times i have pulled it out and shot at a wedding, the fish eye is close to 80% of my reception photos and if i am shooting the wedding in tandem it will make up close to a quarter of my photos most of the entrance and exit photos are done on the fish eye.
This review on photozone is the only one negative i have read, i own new Nikkor 16-35 and it works perfect with my D90, this summer i’m going to buy Nikon fullframe camera (D700 or it’s upgrade) and i hope it will work perfect too!
Thanks for nice review!
Michael, it will work perfectly on the Nikon D700. Check out my latest articles to see some more samples on a full-frame body.
You are most welcome!
I have been checking out wide angle lens and this one is one of them. On a DX body, it will be 24-52.5mm. What will be the factor to consider when choosing wide angle lens? I’m also looking at 10-24mm and 16-85mm.
Dennis
Dennis, I guess it depends on what you want to photograph with this lens. If you want an ultra-wide angle lens, you might be better off with the 10-24mm because it is much wider (15-36mm). However, the 16-35mm is a better investment because it works both on DX and FX.
Nasim, I am looking pretty much for landscape purpose. For my case, 10-24mm would be the better choice. But I am considering 16-35mm as well.
I like Nikon products but for the first time I am looking at Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X 116 Pro DX Autofocus Lens.
I would have sit on 14-24mm if I have a FX body.
Dennis, if you want the best quality and good resell value, go for Nikon instead of Tokina…
Nasim, I have decided on this 16-35mm since I have intention of upgrading to FX in the future. Just to check, have you post any images taken with DX body? Does vignetting issues appear more serious on DX?
I suppose f/8 and f/11 should be quite sharp. The VR is working great! Oh btw, is pretty sad to see this lens perform sharper than 24-70mm at 24mm. I am just about to get 24-70mm.
Dennis, it is the other way around – you will see almost no vignetting and distortion on DX, because the corners are cut off…
Yes, my 24-70mm suffers at 24mm for sure, but I still like it a lot, especially at 35mm and beyond for panoramas.
Hi Nasim,
When using the 16-35 on a dx body (d7000), how much difference do you expect in the “look” of the photos compared to the 10-24 lense?
I really enjoy the look of ultrawide lenses and would also still like to be able to use filters.
I like the 16-35 lense as it seems good quality,and has the VR system which is a big bonus.
I am just wondering how much of that “wide angle perspective” will be lost when using on a dx body, will it basically just look like a normal lense removing that unique change in perspective that i enjoy?
The 10-24 seems to be a good lense from some reviews I read, too bad its missing VR though.
My lense choices so far for the D7000 are 10-24 (or possible 16-35), 35 (possible 50), and 70-300.
Do you see a flaw in this group choice or recommend something different, my budget is somewhat flexible from this with the exception of the highest end glass.
Thanks!
Hi Nasim,
After getting D700, I am thinking to replace my 12-24mm f/4 lens to 14-24mm f/2.8 lens.
After reading your article, I am in between the two : 16-35 or 14-24.
I hardly use any filter but CPL occasionally.
What’s your recommendaion?
What are the disadvantages of using 12-24 on D700?
Pauline, if you use the 12-24mm f/4 lens on your D700, it will crop the frame and your images will only be 6 megapixels. This is because the lens is designed for a DX sensor and you have an FX sensor now :)
If you wait for a week or two, I will post some comparisons between the 16-35mm and 14-24mm lenses. One disadvantage of the 14-24mm, is that you cannot use any standard circular filters on it…but sharpness-wise, the performance should be stellar, even wide open.
So… What about that 14-24mm vs 16-35 comparison ?
So, you’re saying 14-24mm is better than 16-35 sharpnesswise. If the standard CPL cannot be used for that lens, then what kind of polarizing filter can be used?
I will wait until you post the comparison before I decide which one to buy.
Thank you!
Pauline, not necessarily, since 16-35mm proved to be a very good lens when compared to such lenses as 17-35mm and 24-70mm. I want to compare the 16-35mm against a brand new 14-24mm to see how they both perform at various apertures.
The 14-24mm does not even have a filter thread, so you cannot use any circular filters on it. The only alternative is to buy large square filters and either hold them by hand, or use the newly released filter holder for the 14-24mm.
Because I use the wide-angle lens for the wide-open landscape, filter is kind of important factor that I need to consider.
I also love the VR function. I don’t understand why there is no VR in 24-70mm lens. It might be on the way.
My idea about the wide-angle lens is getting clearer.
Thank you!
Pauline,
Lee Filters makes (or is in the process of making) a filter system for the 14-24 lens. It uses 150mm wide square or rectangular filters. Lee Filters makes nice stuff but it is never cheap. Then again, neither is the 14-24. You can see the filter holder on their website. If using filters is important, I would consider something other than the 14-24. Even the expensive Lee system is not not something you would walk around using. It is primarily (in my opinion) a filter system for tripod-based landscape photos.
Another option is to rent the lenses you’re considering and compare them yourself. It may cost a few hundred dollars but if it helps you buy the lens you want, that few hundred is worth it and may save you money in the long run. People constantly look at “reviews” online and then try to make purchase decisions off of what they read. Why not rent two or three lenses, even if it’s only for a few days, and make your decision based on what you experience with a lens. If you end up liking the 16-35 more than the 14-24 for YOUR use, you’d have saved money, even with the cost of renting. If you end up getting the 14-24 after trying others, you’d have the confidence of knowing you got the best lens for you. If all you care about is the absolute best optical quality, regardless of all other factors (price, size, etc.), get the 14-24. There is no WA zoom lens on the planet that performs like it does. It comes down to individual needs and what lens fills those needs. I considered the 14-24 and the 16-35. Price was not the reason I chose the 16-35. It boiled down to use of filters, the ability to use the lens without fear of damaging the front element, and VR. Despite what many say online, I think the VR works and is useful at these focal lengths. But that is my opinion and I am only a single person so others may agree or disagree. Just my thoughts…
Awesome response Randy, thank you!
Randy,
How helpful your detailed reply is to my question!
While reading your comment, I clearly see that 16-35 is more suitable for my need.
Thank you !
Pauline, let me know if you have any other questions.
Great review! I just received my copy today from J&R in NY and it truly is amazing. Sharp, sharp, sharp and it is just a joy to shoot with this lens. Very effective VR as noted. I was never a real wide angle kind of guy, but I might be now, it is that good.
With regards to Photozine, I often disagree with the conclusions they reach in their reviews. I think you are being extremely gracious blaming the equipment! But that’s just my opinion.
Steven, thank you for your feedback, I really appreciate it :)
I’m glad that you are enjoying your 16-35mm as much as I am. Truly remarkable glass!
Thanks for your feedback Nasim. I am getting 16-35mm in a week. I intend to have a circular polarizer. I am also eager to try out ND filter. For a start, what stop is recommended? I hope to get a feel first.
Dennis, circular polarizers are all the same, they stop between 1 and 2 stops of light. As far as an ND filter, if you just want to stop the light (for waterfalls and movement), I would recommend to start with a 6 stop ND filter. If you are looking for a graduated ND filter to correctly expose the sky, start with a 0.9 (3 stop) graduated filter. I recommend Cokin or Lee Filter Systems for that.
Thanks for the great review and thanks for including “real” pictures and not JUST sharpness test shots (like everywhere else).
Jeffrey, you are most welcome! For some reason, due to a bug in one of wordpress plugins, the links in the above review got screwed up. I apologize for this and I have fixed the issue.
Thank you for your feedback!
Can I ask Nasim, what is the vignetting like on the D700 when combined with the Lee filter system, a wide angle adapter, slots for two ND grads AND a Heliopan circular polariser? At what point does the vignetting go away? 20mm? 24mm? This will really help dictate what I will get.
many thanks and great review
Graeme
Graeme, with a polarizer, you are looking at heavy vignetting at 24mm and moderate at 28. By 30mm it should be completely gone.
Thanks very much for the reply Nasim. Looks like my decision has been made for me. 24-70 F/2.8 it is:-)
Graeme, you are most welcome! You won’t be disappointed with the 24-70mm – I love mine!
I am thinking of this lens instead of the 14-24mm due to the need to use filters for landscape work. I am wondering about the Cokin P system with the BPW400 wide angle filter holder but am concerned about vignetting at the wide end. I believe I would get far more use from the 16-35mm compared to the 14-24mm even though I would loose 2mm. It is smaller and lighter with VR.
Any idea if the Cokin P system would work down to 16mm without vignetting?
Is the 16-35mm OK at 16mm for landscape, Concerned about distortion here?
By the way you have a great site.
Geoff, Cokin P would not work with the 14-24mm for sure – it is too small and the 14-24mm would be too wide for it. I wouldn’t use Cokin P with the 16-35mm on FX either…
Cokin has a special X-Pro adapter that can be mounted on the 14-24mm with 150mm filters, but the solution is too darn expensive. The 16-35mm is much more practical in this regard.
16mm on 16-35mm is very good on DX and a little soft in the corners on FX. Distortion is pretty heavy on FX though, but can be easily fixed in Photoshop – pretty normal for an ultra-wide angle lens.
Which one would preform the best distortion wise? I should mainly real-estate and don’t like bended door openings, windows and cabinents. Forget photoshop, I want to save time on editing.
Tim, if you want to save time and do not need to use filters, the 14-24mm would be a better fit in terms of distortion.
I’m looking for some recommendation which one to purchase. I shoot lots of real estate and have been using the 12-24mm. I finally upgraded to a full frame sensor camera and need an equal focal length for my full frame camera. After reading reviews I came to the conclusion that both are great, but the distortion on the 16-35 seems to be worse than on the 17-35mm. I don’t like wall, cabinets, windows etc. to be bended due to distortion. So the question is, which one will give me the straightest lines?
Tim, the 17-35mm is softer and worse than the 16-35mm. Distortion-wise, both lenses have poor performance, so I would recommend to take a look at the 14-24mm f/2.8G instead.
Dear Mansurov, I’ve been asking too many questions hahaha. I just need to ask you one more question :-)
I’m quitting my job and will be traveling to SA for a year and more in Asia. I’m planning to bring my new 70-200mm, D90 with me.. I’m just looking for good recommendation to insured my camera. Have you heard worldnomads?
Another thing is, even though I have 10-20mm sigma, I found it too wide to compliment with my 70-200m and big gap in between. I’m planning to bring only two lens with me. Mostly for zoomed in landscape and people. I’m thinking about getting this 16-35mm.. that do you think? Or do you have any suggestion? Thank you..
Artesia, Worldnomads.com looks good, but I have never worked with them. Have you tried calling your insurance company to see if they can insure your gear? I would try that first…
In terms of lenses, yes, I would recommend to get the 16-35mm for your trip – it will work beautifully on the D90 and you will be able to shoot in difficult lighting conditions handheld, which I bet is going to happen a lot during your trip.
hai Nasim, your reviews and comments are very useful. thanks a lot for your efforts.
Im planning to buy 2 lenses. (14-24 or 16-35) and 24-70 2.8. for wide angle im bit confusing to choose which one is best? in terms of quality, distortion etc.
currently having a DX body, future will upgrade to FX…
kindly update your comments..
Afsel, you are most welcome!
If you are planning to get the 24-70mm f/2.8 and you don’t need to use filters, I would suggest to get the Nikon 14-24mm instead of the 16-35mm. It is sharper and better than the 16-35mm, but it cannot take any filters, except for a custom solution that is very expensive…
wanting to go wider than my 24-70mm i decided to go with the 16-35mm. i am pretty much ready to pull the trigger but became concerned when i went to j&r’s website where they said “Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED VR DSLR Lens – 2182 Clearance Item: Limited Availability, New, 100% Guaranteed. Your price $1,076.94″ everywhere else goes for at least $1100-$1250. is there something going on or is this a mix-up by the ad dept for “clearance item”? no [email] response from them yet. or is the price starting to trend downward? by the way fantastic website. great reviews and tips. thanks
Harold, not sure why they had the clearance item message, but B&H is selling it for around $1,150 at the moment. There is definitely nothing wrong with the lens, unless they have refurbished or gray market versions?
Hi, I am currently using a D300 with a 18-200mm as a general lens. Besides, I also have a 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII, 50mm f/1.4 and 105mm f/2.8 VR. I am thinking of replacing the 18-200mm. Since I already have that 3 other lenses, I do not wish to get anything that has a big range in focal length. Also, I do not wish to invest on a DX lens as I am thinking of upgrading to FX in future. Do you think that the new 16-35mm will be a good choice to replace my 18-200mm? How’s the picture quality when used on a D300? Any comments when used on a D300? Hope to hear from you, thank you.
Albert, when I read that you have the 70-200mm, 50mm and 105mm, I asked myself – why is he keeping that 18-200mm ;-) Really, compared to those other lenses, the Nikon 18-200mm is kind of…mediocre.
Anyway, the Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR is a beautiful lens and works great on the D300. It will also work perfectly well on an FX body. The corners are a little soft wide open, but I shoot landscapes at f/8.0, so it is not really a problem. VR on the lens is awesome!
Thanks for your reply. Wonder if you have any photo taken with 16-35mm on a D300?
Albert, I do and the edges certainly look better than on the D700/D3s.
assalam nazim, hope u r doing fine. belated Eid mubarak.
so far, i dont buy any thing via B&H. howz it? if we buy lenses. is they are delivering perfectly? and is we have to pay any additional cost or anything as customs duty?
Afsel, Va Aleykum Assalam! Where are you located? I believe B&H ships internationally without any problems, so you should be able to buy from them. The only issue is warranty, but it doesn’t matter if you do not have a Nikon service center in your country anyway… In terms of customs, I would give a call to them and find out before you order.
Dear mansour, basically im an indian but right now im staying here in kuwait since 6-7 years. and i need the delivery here in kuwait. more over, when i cross check the prize with local dealers and they are charging approximately 25% or more than that. this is the main reason which i forced to buy via B&H. im planning to buy either 2 or 3 lens from the following.
1 . afs 24-70 2.8
2. afs 70-200 2.8 VR II
3. afs 16-35 VR II F/4
Afsel, I do not really know what the shipping policies for B&H are when it comes to Kuwait. Why don’t you try contacting them or calling them first? Also, I would find out from Kuwait authorities if it is going to be a problem to receive a package with photographic goods from US – you might get charged extra taxes for imported goods (VAT).
Great sites and great reviews. Your site has been the most helpful for me.
I have a d90 and want to upgrade to a full frame soon. My question is what would be a great lense to replace the 18-200mm? At first it was a great all around lense but now that I desire to take the next step in photography I am finding that this lense isn’t cutting it. I bought the 50mm 1.4g and absolutley lov it. Should I lose the 18-200 and go with the 16-35? I like range I got from the 18-200…how can I get the best f both worlds or will it cone down to the nikon trinity :)
Thank you Allan! If you are going to be upgrading to FX, it will certainly come down to the Nikon trinity :) There is really no equivalent lens to the 18-200mm, except for the Nikon 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G VR that has just been announced.
Nasim-
Just curious as to your thoughts about owner of a D300 (me) wanting to upgrade to a D700. What are your thoughts…I know full frame…is it worth the money? Should I wait until the d700 upgrade comes out…or just go for it. My lenses include 85 mm 1.4, 50 mm 1.8 and the 24-70mm
thanks
John, I apologize for a late reply – I somehow missed your comment. Seems like you have a very nice lens kit…do you feel restricted by the DX sensor? One thing for sure, your 24-70mm would work like it should, giving you true 24mm. And the depth of field on your 85mm and 50mm lenses would also get smaller, allowing you to isolate your subjects even more with smoother backgrounds.
On the other hand, it is November now and I suspect a new Nikon D4 will be announced early next year, with a D800 coming in summer. If you are not in a rush right now and your photography is not suffering, I would personally wait, because the new D800 is going to be superb, just like the new D4.
Hope this helps.
In section 20…you state the 16-35 is a 2.8 when comparing to the other lenses….may want to amend?
Brilliant review nonetheless! I also have the 24-70 and as much as I would love to part ways with it I feel I’d miss the extra range before getting into telephoto territory…any suggestions?
Ivan, thanks for pointing it out – it was a typo and I have just fixed it :)
Are you looking into the 16-35mm to get a wider lens?
Follower for a while but not used to comment (my poor english can be hard to understand). I am thinking of buying this lens or 14-24 2.8 instead for wide photography. Price difference is remarkable. Do you think that those extra 2 mm and faster f number worths the extra euros (in my case)?
Thanks for your always useful answers.
BRob, it depends on what you do. If you are on a pro-level and corner-to-corner sharpness is important, then the 14-24mm is worth the price difference. On the other hand, if you are a landscape photographer and you need to be able to use filters, then the 16-35mm is a better choice. It really depends on the type of photography you do. For travel and street photography, I would say the Nikon 16-35mm is a better choice, because it offers VR and the overall sharpness is excellent.
As I said, totally clear and useful answer. Thank you, Nasim.
You are most welcome!
Hi Nasim,
When using the 16-35 on a dx body (d7000), how much difference do you expect in the “look” of the photos compared to the 10-24 lense?
I really enjoy the look of ultrawide lenses and would also still like to be able to use filters.
I like the 16-35 lense as it seems good quality,and has the VR system which is a big bonus.
I am just wondering how much of that “wide angle perspective” will be lost when using on a dx body, will it basically just look like a normal lense removing that unique change in perspective that i enjoy?
The 10-24 seems to be a good lense from some reviews I read, too bad its missing VR though.
My lense choices so far for the D7000 are 10-24 (or possible 16-35), 35 (possible 50), and 70-300.
Do you see a flaw in this group choice or recommend something different, my budget is somewhat flexible from this with the exception of the highest end glass.
Thanks!
Francis, sorry for a late response!
In terms of angle of view on a DX camera, the 16mm is not going to look so wide… If you really like the wide-angle look, then you would be better off with the 10-24mm instead. VR is certainly a big bonus, but the 6mm difference between the 16-35mm and 10-24mm is huge!
The lens choices you have are perfect for the D7000 – I love all lenses you have listed above.
Hi Nasim,
Thank you very much for very useful review. I’m also using D7000 and looking for wide angle lens. I guess I have the answer for my next lens =)
Cheers
photozone calls it a lens not worthy to buy . I love shooting landscape and architecture . I cant afford 14 24 right now . would it be worthy to buy it or go for 24 120 and shoot at the lower corner of 24 . I think this would be a better option. I think one more wide angle f4 product can be awaited from nikon as the one which complements 16 35 of canon L series .
Thiruvengadam, I believe photozone had a bad sample of this lens. Mine worked great and I really loved it. The 24-120mm is also good, but lacks the ultra-wide angle.
Good review. thanx Nasim. I’d like to suggest to everybody not to buy at any pricedx lenses even for dx body. compare to my nikkor lenses 20mm/2.8, 85mm/1.8, 80-200mm/2.8, 45mm/2.8 p, and even to my sigma 105mm/2.8 macro, my dx lens nikon 18-200mm VR is a kind of mediocre . ( but i’m quite satisfied with my nikon 35mm/1.8 dx. I’m also thinking to buy 16-35 mm/4 VR someday for my D3oo.
salams
i have the 16-35mm and lately have sort of started taking more ownership of the style of photography i want to do and i do rather then be all over the place and buy lens like a mad man with no purpose.
with that said i have always wanted to pick up the 24-70 but ended up getting the 16-35
now my question is should i still get the 24-70? in my mind i feel like it would make the 16-35 not see much action unless i want to shoot a scene super wide and shoot it at 16. otherwise i’d be using the 24-70 mostly because it gives me that stop from 35-70 from one lens to the other lens.
any advice?
also any good advice on telephoto lens?
i shoot with a d700 right now i have a 85 f1.4d and the 16-35
thank you!
Ghulam, it really depends on your shooting style. Some people hate mid-range zoom lenses and go for wide + telephoto lenses, skipping the range in between. I personally like the 24-70mm range to work with on FX.
Hi Nasim
I have read your review with great interest.
I have a D80 and plan to make the switch to FX once Nikon replace the D700.
I shoot landscapes. I need good DOF but cannot afford a PC-E tilt-shift lens.
I try to combine shots taken on a tripod with the lens (usually a Nikkor 18-200mm or Tamron 10-24mm)
focused on near / mid /far distances.
I know all lenses change focal length slightly on changing focal distance a little.
My two lenses do this a lot.
I know prime lenses do this too, but less so.
I am toying with buying the 16-35mm f4 now to use on DX temporarily. The alternative is to
get a 20mm f2.8 prime as a temporary move. The second option is a bit wasteful if I upgrade to the 16-35mm later.
BUT….
Do you think the 20mm f2.8 changes focal length on focussing less than the pro-level 16-35mm
Tough question. I wondered if you knew?
Any help much appreciated.
Regards
Chris Cullen
Even if I’m a great fan of prime lenses, In my opinion if somebody is planning to switch to FX Nikon body, the ideal menu is nikkor 16-35mm/f4 VR ( for some extra wide angle and specially for landscape with polariser filter ), Nikkor 50mm/f 1.4 ( as a standard lens and for lowlight) and nikkor 70-200mm/f 2.8 VR or nikkor 80-200mm/ f 2.8 ED lenses. The nikkor 20mm/f 2.8 ( interieur and lanscape) or nikkor 35mm/f 1.4 ( for lowlight and if the size of wallet is not a big problem) or 85mm/f 1.4 ( portraits at low light) or nikkor 105mm/f 2.8 VR ( macro, portraits and tele) should be considered as a piece of cake for dessert only if somebody wants to specialise in a field. otherwise one can survive without a dessert for lunch or dinner. All the best for nikon users !
thanks Ashok
My real problem / question concerns the focal length change on focusing.
It means that if I try to combine neaf and far focused images in photoshop, it is harder as the two images will never align properly due to the slight change in focal length.
Certainly my 50mm f1.8D does this.
I know that zooms are worse (e.g. the 28-300mm) but are primes really that much better?
Chris
Dear Chris,
I was replying to you and Ghulam at the same time. Sorry Nasim, this is not my blog or my website but let me reply once again. I do not get ( understand ) your question Chris. what do you mean by focal length change on focusing? Do you mean depth of field? or do you mean different focal lengths in DX format and FX format? or do you mean distortion at the wide-end ? For example if you use your 50mm/f 1.8 D ( a very good lens at cheap price) in DX body it becomes 75 mm ( then it is quite good for portraits ). Or do you manipulate a lot at Photo shop? you mean you take two pictures of the same subject at different focus and you try to manipulate both at Photo-shop to achieve large depth of field? For depth of field it is not very complected. you just have to increase your aperture ( f 8 or 11 for example instead of f 4 or f 5.6 or even more for tele-lenses and you may need a tripod ) . If your concern is about depth of field, then wide lenses gives more depth of field than standard or tele lenses. I have never asked to my self if my 18-200 gives the same depth of field at 20mm as my 20mm prime lens. 20 mm lens is a very good lens. I have manual AIS version ( not D lens) and i like it very much. But i bought my nikkor 18-200mm only because of dust problem when i have to change constantly my lenses. I don’t have good wide zoom and . I sometimes borrow Sigma 10-20mm /DX which is not the best lens. I’m planning to buy 16-35 some day with a new version of Nikon D700 . distortion at 16 will not bother me because then I will use it for landscape (or for architecture only from 18mm.) In general zoom lenses have more problem of distortion and prime lenses have less distortion. But not all the time. For example if architecture is your field then you should bye another lens not 20mm or 16-35 mm. ( better will be 14-24 mm/2.8 or tilt shift lenses for that purpose as you mentioned if you can afford ) other wise i suggest you to buy 16-35mm if you are planning to switch at FX format and landscape is your field as you mentioned. You do not need PC E tilt shift lens for the landscape. Nikkor 16-35 has VR so one can increase the aperture or use a polariser filter for landscape without using a tripod. Prime lenses were much better but now a days professional zoom lenses are excellent but expensive !!!! If you have already 10-24 and 18-200mm, why do you want to buy 16-35? You should wait until you have FX body. Did I answered to your question? I hope so.
Hi Ashok
I am trying to produce lanscape shots with very great DOF. I could use a tripod and f32 but the diffraction makes shots too soft. I am trying to combine two versions of the same view – one focused on the near foreground and one focused at infinity. I could then vlend them in Photoshop or use TuFuse instead.
All lenses change their focal length a little when changing focal distance. Even prime lenses.
Zoom lenses do it more. For instance to new 28-300 VR gives a true 300mm only at infinity and nearer 200mm when focused at say 5 metres.
This means that images cannot be aligned perfectly as they are taken at slightly different focal lengths.
My question is: Does a pro-level zoom such as the 16-35mm do this less than a amateur zoom. Would a superwide prime such as to 20mm f2.8 be better?
I am planning buy the 16-35mm as my Tamron 10-24 is way too soft at the edges – even at f11 or f16.
Thanks
Chris
Chris, I did not see any focal length changes when changing the focus on camera from close to infinity on the 16-35mm – so it should be a safe buy. What I would do if I were you, buy the 16-35mm from B&H and test it out right away and see how the images blend together. If you have any major issues, just send it back to B&H within 15 days and they will refund you.
Chris, wide-angle lenses are a little better in this regard than standard/telephoto lenses and not all zoom lenses “breathe” the same way 18-200mm and 28-300mm lenses do.
Chris, why invest in glass “temporarily”? If I were you, I would just get the 16-35mm ;-) It gives you extreme wide angles to play with and ability to zoom, which are very useful for landscape photography. I do not think the 20mm f/2.8 changes focal length when focusing though.
Thanks Nasim
I appreciate you taking the time to reply
I plan to move to FX v soon
the 16-35 would not be temporary (just used on a D80 for a few months until I get a D900 etc)
Glad to know your lens does not ‘breathe’ – will order one in next few days (as long as I can hide my credit card staement from my wife!!!)
Regards
Chris
Hi Nasim.
Your tests are exhaustive and very well presented, thanks so much for sharing !
Just a simple question: suppose you had to leave for a trip to India, focusing on people, architecture and street shots (not landscapes), would you take along with you the 14-24 or 16-35 ?
Thanks !
Marco
Marco, for ultra wide-angle shots, I would take the Nikkor 14-24mm with me. If I were shooting landscapes and needed to use filters, the 16-35mm would be the obvious choice :)
16-35 VR is outstanding performer! This will be my next hi-fi lens of Nikon to buy.
But there’s a big big ‘but’. The main complain about wide range is that none of these lenses are universal. 14-24 is fast but has not VR (which is handy) and filter thread (the worst thing about 14-24). 16-35 is slower, but has VR and filter thread. It is 2 millimiters tighter. Extra-reach is appreciated. Overall, 16-35 is a winner, because it slightly sharper than 14-24 and has filter thread (the price of Lee system is whooping, for such a price i’d better take three screw-in B+W filters and my pocket will still be thick enough to buy some beer and pizza).
And here comes the second big big ‘but’. What else? None of the modern autofocus lens stopping hard at the . I’m embarrased every time when going to the inside of deep nowhere at night to do some long-exposure paysages. How am I going to set my lens to infinity without any beam of light at the horizon? AF does not see anything, manual setting is not precise so there can be some misfocusing. These lenses even have no useful DOF scale, which is present in very gelded condition: only f16 markings or whatever… Also, these lenses have no IR-mark. Yes, I shoot infrared with B+W 093 filter.
Is there any variants? Samyang 14, Carl Zeiss Distagon 18 and 21. Samyang is extremely cheap and sharp but its distortion… nah… Distagons are hi-end performers, both have full DOF scale, IR-mark, filter thread, stopping hard at but lacking autofocus and not providing extra-wide reach. Also, Cosina makes wonderful light and small like a match box 20 mm Skopar but it is rare and every time is out of stock. Summary, one’s going to deal with compromises every time. Maybe in the telephoto range one can easily find the best lens for his/her demands, but sadly not in wide range…
Oww… In some sentences were special typographic symbols of infinity and blog’s engine unable to read them, sorry, I didn’t know about that.
thanks for the review!
It’s nice to see that your claims are being backuped up by images. I tested the lenses my self ( 17-35/16-35) and i have reached to a similar conclusion. I will pick up a 16-35 next month.
Thanks for all the hard work you’re doing here!
good luck!
Hi, Nasim!
Currently I possess a Nikon D90 and plan to upgrade my lens kit to something like 16-35 f/4 and 85 1.8. I do travel a lot and have to consider about the weight of my future kit as well as I do not really want to compromise the performance.
I have found that a 16-35 and 85 can be a perfect match due to a focal lenght. However, there is no perfect match out in the world, and I’m worried about a couple weaknesses:
Does the 16-35 deliver a very good performance on a high res sensor, like on D7000 or D3X?
I’m planning to switch to a 16 mp D7000 later on and wonder if the lens will handle dissappointing.
I can probably invest in 24-70mm and forget about the 85mm, but feel like I will miss extra WA.
Sincerely,
Hi,
I’ve just bought the 16-35mm, although my mind was initially on the expensive 17-35mm f/2.8.
I did a few shots already, and I am extremely impressed at the overall results that it gives.
There are few mentions about this lens performing better on a DX sensor, which I’d agree since only the lens’ sweet spot is being used, but I think it defeats the whole purpose of the lens: being an Ultra Wideangle on FX body.
There are excellent Wide-angle lenses for DX format, such as the Sigma 10-20mm and the Tokina equivalent. I’ve had the Sigma for a long time, and it was one of my favourite on my D90.
I missed that wide focal capability on the D700, since I was left with the 14-24mm f/2.8 and 17-35mm f/2.8 to choose from. Both horribly expensive, and designed for professionals’ daily heavy duty use. This 16-35mm is still pricey, especially from where I live, but is the answer to my prayers in terms of ‘affordable’ high quality.
Excellent review, thank you!
You helped me decide to pick this one up as the first wide-angle lens owned for my D700.
Ordered it today and hopefully it’ll arrive before the weekend :)
Best regards,
from Sweden
Hi Nasim
Im very interested with nikon 16-35 f4 based on your review. it was a great review though. Right now im using nikon d7000 and nikon 24-120 f4 lens. Like in one or two year, im hoping to have a fx body. If i buy 16-35 lens to cover wideangle of 24-120,would it be effective or waste of money since I buy it just for 16-23 focal length?
Im doing a lot group photos and i feel 24-120 is a bit hard to cover the task. i have to go backward and sometime in narrow space,it is impossible to do.
my main consideration of 16-35 is VR. I dont have steady hands like many photographers do and VR works great for me. To cover my wideangle focal length,i also consider sigma 17-50 f2.8 (dx only). From reviews I’ve read,it is one good lens too but not as great as 16-35. Sharp in centre but terible in edge frame. Sigma’s costs about half of nikon 16-35.
Any input for my question will be greatly appreciated. Thanks before.
well the 24-120mm is giving you equivalent of 36-180mm now, so the 16-35 would give equivalent of 24-52 approx which is usefully wider. The 16-35mm is superbly sharp. Is use with my D700 but did use it with my D80 for a while. The new FX cameras arrive later this month, so you don’t have long to wait!!
Hi Chris,thanks for the insight.
The real question I like to ask about actually :’does it worth the money?’. I want 16-35 just to cover my 16-23 focal length. As we know,16-35 costs much than d7000 itself. For that amount of money,I’m planning to have af-s 70-300 vr and sb-700 if I don’t buy 16-35.
What do you think Chris?
Thanks
well I’d buy it!
quality second to none
good glassware holds it value well – looks at ebay prices
you are likely to go to FX format sometime and you will then need this lens
buy it now and save money in the long term!
Chris
One last thing Christ.
Have you used it for taking portrait or photo group? That’s one of main reason I want this lens. I shoot a lot of family or group portrait,especially in wedding or birthday party.
I read that this lens has issue with distortion. If I’m gonna shoot people with this lens, would it be looked strange for the result? I once used tokina 11-16 and try shoot people with that and I’m not too happy with the result even though the image results were very sharp.
From all photo samples I’ve searched in web reviews,I couldn’t find sample image of portrait or group portrait taken by this lens.
I have done only a few portrait shots with it. The distortion is mild and if you have Lightroom it can be corrected very easily. It is of course a very lens and will show strange effects on group shots taken close up as all very wide angle lenses always will.
chris
I agree, distortion is obvious on such a wide angle, so try not to put people in the corners. This would be true for any other wide angle lens though…
Steve, no matter what wide angle lens you use under 24mm, you will always get distortion. If you need distortion-free images, you need to be shooting at 35mm and above. If you do have to take portraits on such wide angle, don’t put people in the corners.
Thanks Nasim
In my place,people usually have their reception with large and big wedding stage. I usually shoot like 20-25 peoples stand side by side with only using one flash. While do this,I compose the photo with peoples are placed in lower third of frame so I could take the picture of whole stage. The stage usually 3-4 meters high.
If I’m using focal length 24-35, I have to go backward little bit far that make my flash doesn’t work optimal. Is there any chance 16-35 could help me with this? what do you think Nasim?
Hi Nasim
I finally decide to took second hand of nikon 16-35 after read your review and discussed in this forum week ago. just like you said,it is one unbelievable great lens,even on dx body.
there is one thing I like to ask you about. I feel that VR motor in this lens a little bit noisy,not like my 24-120 f4. My 24-120 has a “click” sound while the VR works but not as loud as 16-35. Im just afraid that I got a bad copy since it’s a used item. The click sound on 16-35 is not as loud as kit lens or 18-200 but i could hear it well. Is it normal on 16-35?
Thanks.
Steve, it is normal for VR to make a clicking noise when it engages, but if it is very loud, then you might want to give a call to Nikon to see if they will service it. It should not be noisier than your 24-120mm.
Hi Nasim,
Is it better to have DX + 10-24mm or FX + 16-35mm for landscape? VR is a non-issue for me and most of the shoot will be at f5.6-f11. Which one do you think is sharper or will they produce identical IQ?
Thanks.
Albert, FX will eat DX any time, especially when it comes to dynamic range. You cannot really compare DX+10-24mm vs FX+16-35mm, because you are mixing different types of sensors and lenses.
Thank you Nasim. Time to save up for D800 then :D
Hi Nasim,
Thanks for your great review on this new lens! It leads me buying this lens yesterday and I’m happy to see the pics are so sharp & beautiful. Btw I’m using D7000 body and one of the reason owning this lens is to be able to use as a ultra wide angle when I upgrade to FX body in future (Not considering 14-24 because non-filter-friendly although I love the sharpness). Currently this lens serves as std zoom on my DX body around 24-52.5mm which a little short range and I missed the telephoto range from 50-200mm. Previously I’m using 18-200 VRII, an all-in-one lens but I sold it because the PQ is not that good on my D7000. I heard rumours saying that D7000 requires better lens due to its high megapixel sensor, is it true? Despite that, I’m considering a third party telephoto zoom Tamron 70-300 USD VC or Nikon own 70-200 VR II, which one you recommending? I heard that Nikon’s 70-300 VR is not sharp at 300mm which dissapoints me to get this. Later, I’ll be getting 50mm prime as well but now not yet decide on f1.4G or f1.8G as the price difference is 3x! My dream combination would be 16-35 f4G VR + 35 f1.8G + 50 f1.xG + 70-200 f2.8G VR II, lacking the middle zoom range here which I would like to add on 24-70 f2.8, only when I get my full frame body. How is your opinions?
just add the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 and you really will have the DX dream selection.
I am in the process of buying these lens also. So far I have the 50 f1.8 & Tokina 11-16… but need more $$ ; )
Don
Haven’t played with the Tokina, so I cannot comment on it.
Hope you will be reviewing this lens soon. Tokina did make good wide angle lenses and give users cheaper alternatives while not sacrifying images quality.
Hi Donz,
Yes, I’m also considering this Ultra Wide Angle lens too. The images it produce is really sharp even at f/2.8 wide open, but it’s distortion is big too. For the moment I’ll save up for telephone zoom lens first as I’m more into portrait shooting than landscape. I wouldn’t consider Nikon’s own 12-24 f/4G although the comments are good, basically because it is a DX and not for future upgrade. I heard ppl saying this 116 can be used in FX body but haven’t got a chance to try it out. It is did, definitely a must go lens. Shooting portraits in wide angle gives another new perspective to my photography style too.
if you are going to upgrade to FX later then the Tokina 11-16 is not really what you want as it is a DX lens. The distortion is easy to correct in Photoshop, but it pays to leave some extra space at the sides of the photo when you frame it up, as Photoshop will crop a bit at the sides when you correct the distortion ; )
Preston, excellent choice! The 16-35mm is a beautiful lens for sure. As for your Tamron 70-300mm vs Nikon 70-200mm question, without even looking at the Tamron, I would say the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G VR II is the lens you want to get. It is sharp, fast and renders beautiful colors with a creamy bokeh. Now you also mentioned the Nikon 70-300mm lens. Was the 70-200mm a typo or are you trying to decide between 70-200mm and 70-300mm? If you want the reach and do not have the budget for a $2K lens, then go for the Nikon 70-300mm VR. Its performance at 300mm might not be superb, but it is still a very good lens. I would not take my chances with a third party lens. Those are always hit and miss…
As for a 50mm, get the Nikon 50mm f/1.8G – it is currently the best 50mm lens from Nikon in my opinion.
Not typo, I means the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II, the sixth generation of Nikon’s large aperture telephoto-zoom. This is a dream lens for me, but I wouldn’t be buying it if I get the 85mm f/1.4G specialize portrait lens (I’m actually considering this too at the moment) but I would love to have some versatility with zoom.
I have just bought the Nikon 50mm f/1.8G last week and amazed by how sharp the images it can produce at wide open aperture F1.8! This is a superb lens with reasonable price.
Currently I’m using 3 lenses: 16-35 f/4G + 35 f/1.8G + 50 f/1.8G. What is your opinion on my choice of lenses?
Preston, you have a very solid line of lenses – that’s what I would personally buy as well. As for the 70-200mm vs 85mm, I would say the 70-200mm is more flexibility and options, although it does come with the weight :) Also, AF on the 70-200mm is more reliable, in my opinion.
Which one do you think is better? 17-55 2.8 or this one for a DX body? the 16-35 is a little bit less expensive but the 17-55 has a larger aperture. Thank you!
Bart, I would pick the 16-35mm on a DX body. 17-55mm is too expensive to be a DX-only lens in my opinion.
Thanks Nasim! appreciate it!:)
Hi Nassim,
I have D90 with 18-105 and 35 f1.8 and it is time to upgrade full frame.
I will buy my lenses which will be the best in their class, since it is a kind of investment. On the other hand I have a limited mind :) think about the price difference and lens quality differences. Are those differences worth to pay?
I shoot street, portrait, landscape.
16-35 or 14-24
70-200 or (70-300 + 85 1.8D)
50 1.8 or 1.4G
I will be appreciated with your comments.
Best regards
Mehmet, it depends on whether you shoot with filters or not. If you do not use filters, go for the 14-24mm and if you do, go for the 16-35mm. 70-200mm and 50mm f/1.8G would be my other lenses to pick.
Thank you very much for kind comments. I was confused about selection.
I think I will pick both :))
Best regards from rainy Antalya…
I’ve been using this fabulous lens on my D700 for several months and find that you really nailed this review. A while back I went to a walkway with a glass bottom over a waterfall, and it wasn’t convenient to use a tripod. I hand held at up to one second with VR on, and performance at 1/2 sec. and faster was exceptionally sharp. I’m also impressed at its rendering wide open at f/4, which combined with the VR makes it my default setting with highest confidence under most conditions.
I agree, VR helps tremendously, even on super wide angle lenses…
I am just switching from Canon to Nikon, and am really enjoying your reviews. Thank you for the time spent! I am starting out with the D7000 (still on backorder). I will want to invest in a pro body at some point, and because of that I’m investing in lenses with the FX format. What is the best way to tell if the lenses are having focusing issues? Is this a consistant problem with Nikon lenses?
Also, I am thinking of starting out with the 50mm 1.8G and 16-35mm f/4G (knowing that it’s about 24-52mm on DX format), using them for portrait and landscape/architecture, during travel. I would love to photograph weddings one day. In your opinion, are these good lenses to start with, or would you suggest a different zoom? Long term I would also love to own the 24-70mm f/2.8G and 70-200mm. Keeping that in mind, would it be better to go with the 14-24mm f/2.8 ED, rather than the 16-35mm f/4G?
Thank you for your help!
Anna, don’t be scared of focus issues on lenses – it is not just a “Nikon” issue. All camera manufacturers, including Canon have occasional focus issues. You can test your lenses for these issues as soon as you receive them. Since you already have experience shooting with a DSLR, you should probably just start out shooting subjects at very large apertures to see if you have any focus issues. Then if you do suspect AF problems, print out a test chart and shoot it at a 45 degree angle (lots of manuals online on how to do this, I will publish mine soon as well). You will then find out for sure if you have a problem or not.
Now as far as choosing lenses, I would start out with the 50mm f/1.8G (for portraits) + 16-35mm f/4 (for wide-angle travel/landscapes) and then eventually look into purchasing other pro-level bodies.
Hi Nasim – thanks for this great review. I read and re-read your posts and decided on this lens over the 14-24. I don’t regret it. This lens is a STUNNER! I shot it wide open and the first shot I took of my little girl was tack sharp. I can’t wait to test it further. Thanks again for the sage advice and the great review. Please keep them coming! :)
Jason, I am glad you are enjoying the 16-35mm – it is a beautiful gem!
Hey Nasim,
Excellent review as always. I’m a fan of both your work and willingness to share the knowledge with newbies. Quick question: I’m looking for a full-frame lens to do landscape AND astrophotography. 14-24 sounds amazing but the extra expense and hassle of filter handling may be a deal breaker. Now, between the 17-35 and the 16-35, which one would you recommend? 16-35 sounds better but I’m not sure that for astrophotography the diff between F2.8 and f4 is huge or not. VR doesn’t really flick the needle because I plan on largely using the lens with a tripod. Thoughts are much appreciated!
Sobby, neither the 17-35mm, not the 16-35mm lenses are a good fit for astrophotography where you need excellent performance wide open. You cannot beat the Nikon 14-24mm in that regard – I would only choose the 24mm f/1.4 over the 14-24mm for astrophotography, because it gives you two more stops of light advantage.
Hi Nasim,
First, your site is fantastic. Very informative and right to the point. Your reviews are some of the best I have read. Your photography samples are stunning. Congrats on a job well done in all areas in my opinion.
I’m just a photo enthusiast since the early 70′s starting with a Pentax Spotmatic! But in the last 10 years, I have had a D100 and now a D700 for the last year.
I use my D700 exclusively now. My general walk-around lens is the older Nikon 3.5/4.5G ED, AF-S, 24-85mm. I am wondering if an upgrade to the 24-120mm would be worth it for the extra length and VR, nano coating, etc, and maybe even sharpness. The 24-85 is not bad, but there is a lot of front end wobble when extended, and if you turn the focus ring, you can see the picture shift a bit to one side.
I also have the Nikon f2.8 105mm Macro which is fantastic and I use it for portraits and close-up photography of flowers, bugs, and other just creative stuff. I also have the older Nikon 70-300mm 4/5.6 ED , not AF-S which is OK but not fantastic without VR and a bit slow focus. And finally, I have a Nikon 50mm 1.8D (cheap version, non ED).
I was also considering the Nikon 16-35mm F4 as I have no super wide angle, or the 24-120mm F4 VR, but not sure which should be the first one to get. The 16-35mm might not get as much use unless the 35mm range is better than I am thinking for general photo use.
But I like to have quality lenses as much as I can afford (who doesn’t), so I am really torn between the 16-35mm and the new 24-120mm F4 VR. I am really use to the high quality of the 105mm F2.8 images, and wondering what you might think is the best lens to really shine in getting closer to the 105mm quality. I know these are two different animals, but I need to compromise as I usually only buy one lens per year in these price ranges. I read your reviews on both, and on the Nikon70-200mm which had stunning images. Your thoughts?
Thank you.
Hi Nasim, first of all i would like to thank you for your effort sharing this very informative review on the web.. I also have the D700, the 70-200/2,8 v2 and the 24-70/2,8 and was thinking of buying a wideangelzoom.
And like so many others i chose between 14-24, 17-35 and 16-35. After reading quite many reviews on the internet i bought the 16-35 and i also like you, think that on the outside, buildquality is very alike the 24-70 maybe a little more plastic in some places but you have to knock on it to find out.
My question for you is regarding the quality of this lens, i have red that for example the 70-200 and the 24-70 lenses have the SWM motor of ring type which is more accurate and fast but the 16-35 has the micro type with some kind of cheeper plastic gearbox which is not of such good quality and also focusing slower. Anything you know about?
Kind regards from Marten, Lund Sweden
Hi Nasim,
Any good suggestions for a variable ND filter for the 77mm fit? I know Singh Ray do one but I am finding it hard to order one from from the UK. Does anyone else produce one? If not, which density of filter is most useful in your opinion? I am starting out with landscape photography and will have the 16-35 tomorrow.
Kind regards.
Mark
Hi, Why are you finding it hard to order Singh Ray filters to the UK? I’ve done it several times and their service has always been excellent.
/C
Hi again, here a link where i red about the Nikon SWM, don´t know if it´s worth trusting.
http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/nikon/775275-nikon-does-not-tell-you-all-truth-swm-silent-wave-motor.html
So far I only found one review, dpreview, that claims in their specifications that is it a ring-type ultrasonic motor, see link below.
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_16-35_2p8_vr_n15/
I also contacted Nikon in Sweden but got no answere, the claims that they didn´t know and if so it´s confidential info. Hoping to here your comment soon.
Kind regards from Marten – Sweden
Hi Nasim,
Regarding this 16-35mm, do you have tester it for Hotspots when shooting IR? The 17-35 has a hotspot right smack in the middle when in tandem with R72 Hoya Filters. THanks! :D
+1 on this… would like to know if 16-35 f4 has a hotspot when shooting IR. i shoot a lot of IR with my UwAs… and which of hte 16-35 f4 & 17-35 f2.8 has a better control of flares and ghosting?
Any comments or suggestions are highly appreciated. Thank you!
Hi,
Is the distortion of the 16-35 perfectly fixable with Lightroom lens correction?
Or is it subject related (building almost impossible to correct?)
thanks!
Thank you very much for this review Nasim,, this will be my next lens to buy and go with my new Nikon d700
Regards
William
hi, nice review..
Nasim in terms of image quality which is better 16-35 f4 or 24-120 f4?
regards,
Just received my new Nikon 16-35mm f4,, Realy great
Thanks for the test you road Nasim
Hi Nasim
I am looking for a wide angle lens for my D800 that will be arriving in the next week or so. I had considered this lens but when I read your statement below, it made me pause. Do you believe this will be a problem lens for the D800 or ?
Thanks
Dave
“I’m currently in Utah and I have been shooting with this lens exclusively for the last 3 days. The sharpness and performance of the 16-35mm is outstanding, I am very impressed. I am now convinced that Photozone’s review is either flawed, they have a bad sample or performance on a sensor with a large resolution might not be as good. So far the lens has been working beautifully on both FX (D700) and DX (D300) sensors and the corner sharpness is not bad at all!”
Hi Nasim,
Your review is great and very informative. Thanks for this detailed nice and very helpful review but
where are the comparison shots of 14-24 and 16-35 that you promissed long before.
Do you really think it is overall better then 14-24 irrespective of price? What is your recommendation between these two.
thank you … based on LOTS of reading, testing, and subjective input (75% you, 25% ken rockwell), i made these choices:
1. d800
2. 16-35mm AF-S f/4 VR
3. 50mm AF-S f/1.4
4. 16mm AF f/2.8 fisheye
5. B+W MRC filters for 16-35mm & 50mm
6. Lens Coat for 16-35mm (protect this big boy from smacks)
may i please ask for your input on 2 topics:
1. thoughts on a Katz Eye custom focusing screen conversion for the d800 (about $200 installed)?
2. 70-200mm AF-S f/2.8 VR … OR … 85mm AF-S f/1.4G portrait lens?
i mainly shoot action … skateboarding mostly outdoors, some indoors under fluorescents, once in a while indoors in poor lighting.
10% of the time i’ll shoot scenes, portraits, and random shots …
your willingness to share is sincerely appreciated, i’d like to personally say thank you, i would have made several poor/expensive decisions without your input … may all that good fortune come back to you and more !!!
regards, jeff
Suggest you read ” Rational Lens Choice” on Thom Hogan’s website ( bythom.com). GE
Hi Nasim…great review. I just received the 16-35 and on my old D80 it seems much softer than my 24-70 or 105 micro. I have a d800 on order. Should I reserve judgement? Is the d80 unable to take full advantage of this lens? I hate to send it back considering the great reviews…appreciate your input.
Nasim:
Great review.
It is due to your site I bought the 24-120 f/4 and I am quite happy with it, notwithstanding the occasional longing glance at the 24-70 f/2.8! It is on the strength (primarily) of your review I am buying the 16-35 now. I had a couple of questions:
Given the increased resolution of the D800, do you see any issues using the 16-35 on the D800? In general, how does it perform on the D800? Have you had cause to change your opinion of this lens when used on the D800?
Asking mainly because you point out in the Q&A that the Canon 17-40 results may be different because of the difference in resolution between the two systems.
THanks.
Hi Nasim,
Let me add my voice to the choir of people asking whether, on the D800, there will be enough of a visible difference in the output of the 14-24 over the 16-35 to justify the approximately $500 difference between the two.
Some reports suggest that the 16-35 is such a match sharpness-wise for the 14-24 as to be virtually indistinguisable, while some others suggest that the 14-24 is massively ahead.
I just sold a D700 and 17-35 2.8 combo to get the D800 and a better lens. 16-35 would be the “rational” choice, being much cheaper, lighter, more convenient, while I expect the 14-24 no doubt has additional assets (extra field of view, better (but how much?) corner sharpness, etc.).
For those times where I will whip out the tripod, set up carefully, and take a wide shot, how much of a difference in a big print (I bought the D800 to be able to print at least 24×36) will I see betwee the two lenses? Those are expensive toys already and if there isn’t enough of a performance gap between the two, I’d be happy to spare the extra $500.
Do you have a more in-depth head-to-head review of these two lenses on the D800 in store?
Thanks!
Claude
Nasim and all,
I see that the use of 16-35 and filters is an hot topic in this thread of comments. How about a specific article on that?
I just bought the lens and I am in the process of selecting a filters system at the moment. As I want to use graduated filters and possibly combine more than one filter, I guess I have to go for a square filter/holder system. My question is will the Cokin P series be “enough” (define “enough”: “acceptable” vignetting at 16mm f/11, define acceptable:… :-S ).
If not, which between Lee and Cokin Z-Pro would vignette less? Or none of them is still acceptable and I should I go for the X-Pro (with the drawbacks of cost and size)?
Hola Nasim,
Is it a bit early to ask you your thoughts on this new 16-35 Nikon when mounted on the D800?
Basically I am interested in whether it can out resolve the 36 meg sensor, as it will be judged at pixel level without any downsampling.
I know from your previous tests that the 14-24 is probably the sharpest option for a pro wide angle but would prefer the 16-35 for focal length, weight, VR etc
In order to gain max resolution with the D800 it will be used around its peak performance areas of f5.6 to f11 whenever practical.
Regards and thanks
Michael
Hi Nasim,
I’ve just ordered Nikon D5100. Will Nikon 16-35mm f/4.0 be a good lens for this new DX camera body?
Thank you very much,
Thuy Nguyen
Hi Nasim,
Do you have a moment to comment on the sharpness of the 16-35 with the D800, it appears a lot of people are really interested in this selection and the 14-24 option.
Regards
Michael
Hi Nasim,
Thank you for such a reliable place to come when I need a trustworthy review!!
I just ordered the 16-35mm to go with my new D800 (and I have a D90 backup).
Can you make a comment how this lens works with the D800 – it would be nice to hear your opinion.
Thank you.
I am now buying my first full frame camera (probably the d800) I have had a Sony a-100 for the last 5 years or so. I was looking into buying the new 28mm/f1.4 and I also saw this. Now im wondering which one I should buy. I have mostly worked with zoom lenses (18-70 mostly) and have one 50mm/f1.8 which I use sparingly but am trying to get more into prime lenses now. What would you suggest aside from the price difference.
Also, should I wait and buy the 14-24mm/f2.8G later instead of the 16-35mm/f4 now?
I just got the 16-35mm f4 today and boy is it a fun lens!!!! Supersharp, fast, wide and …. did I mention fun?
I shoot it on D800 and I think they are made for each other.
I am happy I went for this and not the 14-24 – which is heavier, much more expensive and although it might be just a bit sharper for pixel peepers… well, it’s not worth it for me.
PLUSS, I think the 16-35 is much more practical range and should you need litte more reach with it, go DX with on the D800 and you’re laughing.
I also like the fact that I can use 77mm filters on it.
Excellent lens, I am so happy I got this and can’t wait to play with it some more in the days to come!~
Dear Nasim,
For the new lens: AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR
I hope you can review it. I am most interested in knowing if it has the similar quality as 16-35. I am thinking to buy both for D700, or just 24-85mm and skip 16-35.
comments on the D800 combined with the 16-35mm f/4 VR lens :
1. EXCELLENT close up, amazing detail & sharpness, little to no vignetting across the whole picture.
2. AVERAGE to ABOVE AVERAGE over longer distances (some blur @ long distances) … then again, why use 16mm or even 35mm to shoot long, bad matchup so if long-distance shooting is something you do a lot, this is not the right lens for that.
3. ANY lens that has a VARIABLE f/range (ex. f/3.5-4.5 on the 24-85mm) is NOT going to be as solid a lens as one with a FIXED f/stop (ex. f/4 on the 16-35mm) … maybe consider the 16-35 for close work, and supplement it with a fixed f/stop 85mm lens ?
4. the 16-35 seems like a clear price/performance winner to the 14-24 … its VR is a true winner, allows great handheld shots, even with the incredible resolution of the d800.
5. i asked almost the same question … i ended up with the 16-35 f/4 VR and i bought a 85mm PCE (tilt/shift) that i use for longer shots, and portraits, or when i wish to play with perspective use the tilt/shift features. The only consideration with the 85mm PCE is that it is manual focus only, but i use it in the f/8+ range, so there is enough depth of field to cover up any slight mis-focus due to moving subjects or deep range requirements.
6. my opinion … the 16-35mm is an EXCELLENT complement to the d800, amazing close up photos that will blow your mind ;)
regards, jeff
Hi Jeff,
Thanks for your comments. For portrait, I currently have a 85mm/1.8G. Based your #3, I will get the 16-35 f/4, and not consider 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR. Just returned D800 and got a D700 yesterday. I will test 16-35 f/4 once I receive it. Plan to add lenses as needed.
Regards,
Jay
Dear Nasim,
Thank you for the very informational review.
I am in the process of getting a new lens strictly for landscape photography, and i was wondering if you can give your point of view on which one is the better fit for me. For me, it comes down to this 16-35mm f/4g vs the 20mm f/2.8d.
I love shooting with primes, so of course I would go with the 20mm prime. But since the 20mm is an older lens in term of optic design compare to this 16-35mm i am hesitant to get it before doing further research. Most lens with new optic designs are just better in term of everything compare to old optic designs.
This is what i’ve came to when comparing the two:
Advantages of the 20mm
- super small and super light
- primes are considered very sharp
- price is less than the 16-35mm zoom
- since for landscape photography i will be shooting between f8 to f16, i won’t have to worry about vignetting
Advantages of 16-35mm zoom
- new optic designs (maybe it’s an advantage)
Having VR on the zoom doesn’t give me any advantage since i will be using a tripod. So the only thing holding me from getting the 20mm is if the new zoom is actually sharper because of the new optic design.
What are your thoughts? Thanks in advance for your help.
Hi nasim,
I’m very interested in buying a wide angle zoom lens and looking forward to pair the nikkor 16-35 f/4 by your review on 16-35 f/4 and the review is very helpful. Being reviewed as the world’s sharpest wide angle zoom lens makes me wonder how it will perform on DX camera. i own D7000 and 24-120 f/4 lens.
I use the 24-120 lens as a daily lens and I must say the VR really – really helpful and the Nano is superb, that’s why I’m looking forward to pair the 16-35 with my D7000. But I’m still confuse on how the 16mm would be wide enough for DX format. Since some opinions say that if i want wide, then use the 10 to 14mm lens to cover the wide angle.
My other alternative lens is the highly rated Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 which also rated highly by many reviewers. i know that it’s not a fair comparison, it’s very different from the price-wise, feature-wise, etc.
But maybe you could advise me about these lens compared to each other when paired to D7000.
Many thanks.
Adry, get the 16-35mm for your D7000 and you will not be disappointed. Focal length is perfect (24mm equivalent, which is my favorite focal length to start with) and if you need anything wider, you can always find other super ultra-wide lenses like the 10-24mm. I personally like to stay above 24mm focal length though, primarily due to less distortion and easier panoramic stitching. The Tokina is also pretty good, but don’t forget that it is only DX, whereas the 16-35mm is a full-frame lens. If you ever upgrade from your D7000 to something like D800/D4, then you can use the lens as well without having to worry about selling it and buying another lens.
Hi Nasim,
I highly appreciate your reviews and comments; they are very enlightening.
Having read your review of Nikkor 16-35mm, I have one question: is it necessary to have a slim polarizing filter to avoid vignetting when shooting at 16-24mm, or would a non-slim filter be fine on this lens.
Thank you!
Yuri, slim filters help with vignetting, but I cannot recommend them. When you use a slim filter you can no longer use lens caps, which is a major disadvantage. I would rather have vignetting than inability to use lens caps.
Hi Nasim,
Great reviews as usual and your site is very helpful indeed. I’ve just purchased the new d800 and contemplating on what lens to buy. I’m an avid traveller from cities to trekking and travel around the world. My main love is documentary and street photography, but also like shooting landscapes when trekking. What would be the best lens out there for me? I already own the 50mm and 70-300 so just want a great all round wide angled lens…
I really don’t know what to do.
right now I got the 50mm f1.8G and 70-200 vrII
I’m looking for something wider
I’m really torn up between the 16-35 f4 and the 24-70 f2.8
24-70 is good for a lot of things
but the 16-35 is great for landscape
does anybody have the two
which one would you pick up if you are going on a vacation for example ?
Thanks !
I have both and neither is light enough for vacation as a walk around lens in my opinion…IQ on the 24-70 is the best I have ever seen.
I recently purchased a 16-35 VR lens to use with my new D800. I have just completed some comparison tests with the 16-35 VR, 24-70, and the new 28 f/1.8. Images were captured tripod mounted (VR off on the 16-35), with Mup and remote release. My copy of the 16-35 is MUCH softer at 28 mm, f/4 and f/8, than either the 24-70 or the 28 f/1.8 at the same settings. In fact, it is only slightly sharper than my 28-300 VR at 28 mm. The results are extremely disappointing, considering the cost and reviews of the lens. I really want to like this lens. The VR, lighter weight, lower cost and ability to use filters are advantages over the 14-24. Any suggestions?
Woody – can you return your copy of the 16-35 and exchange it for another? I’ve had extremely great success with my copy in both sharpness and contrast.
I returned the first copy I had and bought another with great results…incredibly sharp on a d800…good luck.
Hi Nasim,
Can you please compare/review tokina 17-35 f4 lens ? i know it wont be as sharp as nikon 16-35 but i would be using it mainly at F8 for landscape anyway ! I m currently using D90+ Tokina 11-16 for landscape and will be getting a D600 Soon, so was wondering whether to go for tokian 17-35 f4 as this would be a bit too high for my budget…
I like ur blogs & follow them religiously
thanks
As there’s so much experience and knowledge around I’d like to ask those in the know to look at these photo’s done with my new 16-35 F4 on a D800 as I’m somewhat surprised by the lack of focus in the corners. Is this considered acceptable or should I exchange/ return the lens?
F4.0
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2701978/DSC_0864.JPG
F6.3:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2701978/DSC_0862.JPG
F11:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2701978/DSC_0865.JPG
Thanks & regards,
Dirk T
In the mean time this lens was send to the (Dutch) importer to be checked out.
According to them the lens conforms with the expected standards.
In other words, event hough I understand the very high demands the D800 makes on it’s glass this is not quite as good a lens as I had expected…
Hi Nasim, thank you very much for your detailed review. Just like the other readers, I also found it interesing that photozone has terrible marks on 16-35. I’ve read your replies to other people, and here is my thought: either photozone had a really bad copy of 16-35, or the D3X made the 16-35 not that good compared to D700. However, I still highly doubt the latter, as 16-35 came out later than D3x, equipped with almost everything that nikon has in their weapon case. I think it would be ridiculous if nikon announced a pro grade lens that sucks when mounted on their top camera(ie. 16-35 on D3x).
Apparently photozone is the only source that has a unpleasing result from 16-35. I also checked out DxO Mark and compared 16-35 to 17-35 on D3x. Their lab score is pretty close to yours from every perspective.
Lastly, may I know if you have used 16-35 on a D800 yet? I have a positive feedback from a pro friend of mine who owns D800, 14-24 2.8, 16-35 VR, and sigma 12-24 II, but it will be fantastic if I can get your thought as well.
Ting, the Nikon 16-35mm is a marvelous lens! Yes, I have tested it on the D800 and it is my top choice for landscape photography. It works very well, just like I indicated in this review.
Thanks for your quick reply, Nasim!
Besides that, I just wanna say awesome to your input again. I just discovered your website three days ago and I was reading your articles one by one in the past few days. What I am really excited about is that most of your points on photography gears and techniques just match the experience of mine, which makes me feel confident as a “beginner semi-pro photographer”. I started my semi-pro photography business about 6 months ago, and then my skills and thoughts improved a lot. However, none of my amateur photography friends could understand me anymore . Now I know I’m on the right track. For the few articles that I couldn’t fully understand, I can confidently assume that they are great and very reliable. I will be your long term reader for sure. Thanks a lot!
btw, I compared the sigma 12-24 4.5-5.6G II to 14-24 on d700. the new sigma is not bad, at least much better than the first generation. It might worth a test as it is the widest wide angle lens for now.
Sincerely,
Ting
This is timely. I am considering a ultra-wide angle lens and I was debating the 14-24mm, the 17-35mm and the 16-35mm.
My concerns with the 14-24mm are the lack of a screw-on filter mechanism. I will re-read your review of the lens though.
Trying to make price a non-issue as these are lenses…but the 16-35mm f4 is considerably cheaper (by $400) which makes it a bargain.
Dear Mr. Mansurov,
I was wondering if u can help with my dilemma…
I’m primarly an event photographer but i’m also doing a lot of street work – life photography. Generally speaking, portraits are my main theme. At the moment i own D300s, but I’m buying D800E in a couple of months.
So can u tell me wich ultra wide lens would do the best for me.. I was thinking between 16-35mm f4, 14-24mm f2.8, 20mm f2, and perhaps 28mm f1.8g (wich will be great wide lens on D800E and ok normal lens on my D300s)?
Thanks in advance!
Aleksa
Aleksa, why do you want to buy the D800E if you are an event photographer? The Nikon D800 would be a better fit for you, since it would have no issues with moire.
As for the wide angle lens, I would personally go with the 28mm f/1.8G for photographing people instead of the 16-35mm…
Nasim, thank you very much for swift reply!
I tried not to boder you too much with my question so i have not mentioned that i’m also a student of photography… Business is business, but for my soul (and off course student projects) i shoot a variety of different themes. Lot of them cry for high resolution for big size prints, and because i love crisp and sharp images, i found that D800E will maybe do better for me. Couple of my coleagues have D800E and thay had no issues with moire. You have certanly installed small worm in my head, so i’ll definetly reconsider my decision (it is always a good thing when you buy propper tool and leave few bucks in pocket)… ;)
Secondly, i have order 28mm, you certanly confirmed my positive thoughts about that lens (with this comment, and of course with your great review).
This was really helpful for me, thank you very much Nasim!
Best regards from Belgrade, Serbia!
PS: Have you heard a rumors about even wider f/1.8 new Nikon lens? One bird told me that Nikon will soon lunch 4th add to new 1.8G series with something in between of 14mm and 20mm. Any truth in that?
Hello, Nasim. I have the Nikon 24-70mm, 70-200mm 2.8 VRii both of them really make me happy. I am looking for a super wide-angle lens. I do not know whether I should go for the 14-24mm (to make the Nikon Holy Trinity of lenses ) or the 16-35mm.
The reason I do not want to buy the 14-24mm is that it cannot take my ND, graduated and CPL filters. I am quite happy shooting landscape with my 24-70mm, however sometimes I want to go for a bit wider and with me ND and CPL filters are very important. That is the main reason that I am more interested in the 16-35mm
However, if I buy the 16-35mm, I will have the overlapping focal length from 24-35mm. Is that considered a waste? Because I mainly shoot with my 24-70mm and I only mount the 16-35mm if I need wider angle. Thus, I will only use the focal length of 16-24mm of the Nikon 16-35mm lens.
I am very confused right now. Could you give me your advices please?
Thank you very much. I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Regards,
Time Do
Nasim, to accompany the Nikon D800 I am torn between getting the 70-200 F4 newly announced lens or the 28-300 f3.5-5.6 for telephoto lenses. Which would you recommend?
Julian
Dear Nasim,
Do you ever try 16-35 on D3s. it is perfect ?Advise please.
Regards.
Lim Lee
Hey Nasim,
I have read your column about the Nikkor 16-35, and found it quite true. Your comments about the clearness of the lens is so true to form. I had bought the Nikon d600 and use the 16-35mm on my photo shoots, and it is just super clear close-up and zoomed. It the 16-35 is the perfect all around if you like wide angle lenses this is the one just aim and shoot and it is super clear. I also own the Nikon D7000, D200, the Nikkor’s 28-300mm and the 70-200mm f2.8. One can’t go wrong with any one of these lenses for portraits, sports and all around travel.
Thanks Again for the great columns and info, God Bless, Ed
Hello Sir,
“Happy New Year”
I have read a comment in B&H about Nikkor 16-35 mm, is that when this lense is attached with a 77 mm round filter @16 mm shot we can see the filter edges,is that true?can u plz let me know about this?
Hey Deepak,
Yes, at 16mm the very corners do exhibit darkening with the netural density ND4 filter. Also with the circular polarizer CPL it shows a slight darkening too. But bring it into slightly to the 17mm range and it goes away. The timed lapse photos where you have it at f4-f6 range, it doesn’t pose to have a ghost at the edges of the frame, of course the night shots will not show any dark spots. The multi coated UV filter will have no effect in the darkness through the whole range even at ISO 800. I hope this helps, I’m still having fun with this lens compare to the 14-24mm at 16mm rather than the 14mm range it shows less distortion and a more usable picture at least for me anyway… Later.
I am not sure if the situation is the same as the tokina 11-16 lens. I had to get a super-thin version of CPL (one where you cannot put the cap back). That solved the problem. I will know soon :)
I recently got a 16-35 f/4 VR and a 70-200 f/4 VR, primarily for video work. Many folks questioned Nikon putting VR on a wide angle zoom…but it does make a difference. The link will take you to a few quick clips that I shot with my D7000 with the 16-35 f/4 VR, toggling back and forth between VR off and VR on. Shot in 1080 at 24 fps.
I likewise am highly impressed by this lens. I was not expecting it to be quite as good as it is. And the VR is a marvel. I shot this image hand held on a D700 in Hong Kong late last year. Taken at early night time I think the shot was captured at around an eighth of a second – and it was pretty much pin sharp. While distortion can be an issue in some situations it’s relatively easy to fix in post.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/life_in_shadows/8153056510/in/photostream
While I am at it, here is another shot taken at a similar time and in much the same place
http://www.flickr.com/photos/life_in_shadows/8166453012/in/photostream
And one that demonstrates its more general capabilities just for the heck of it – also at night using VR
http://www.flickr.com/photos/life_in_shadows/8153334582/in/photostream
Hi Nasim,
I had a chance to do some quick hand-held video clips with my new Nikkor 16-35 f/4 VR lens at a recent auto show and put them together in a short assembly. Shot with my D7000, 30 fps in 720. Various ISO and apertures used in available lighting. I think the 16-35 f/4 VR does a great job for video….you can see from the clips that the colours are nice and rich, good detail and contrast….and the lens seems to handle bright reflections quite well. Thanks again for your terrific review…it really helped me choose this lens and I have been thrilled with its performance.
Well, I have read through mostly all of your comments about different lens (Nikon Lens) . But I have really enjoyed reading all.So for all of the people that had comments about Nikon lens, I really appreciated reading your comments and also your concerns.
Well, I have read through mostly all of your comments about different lens (Nikon Lens) . But I have really enjoyed reading all.So for all of the people that had comments about Nikon lens.