I would agree with Jakb its distortion is unusable for architectural or interior photography. I use several other lenses with the Nikon 17 35, 2.8 ed an excellent lens including Zeiss Contax lenses with absolutely superb optics. Newer definitely does not mean better.
jakb
December 24, 2020 6:52 am
Thanks for the review. But…can you downgrade this lens to a silver award. Because its probably the worst Nikkor when it comes down to distortion and corner sharpness. Thanks and happy Holidays.
Rob Smith
April 16, 2018 8:25 am
Hi Nasim,
Have you had an opportunity to assess how this lens performs with the NikonD850?
Thanks,
Rob
Rob Smith
April 16, 2018 8:24 am
Hi Nasim,
Have you had an opportunity to assess how this lens performs with the NikonD850? Thanks, Rob
O yrang
March 27, 2018 10:04 pm
I love shooting landscape with my nikon 24-120mm f/4 lens in my nikon d750 camera by using square filters . Now would it be worthy to buy nikon 16-35mm f/4 lens for the sake of focal length from 16 to 23mm? Are there any changes in my landscape photography after being upgraded to nikon 16-35mm lens? With regards
Anna
March 13, 2018 4:14 pm
I’ve been looking into ultra wide angle lenses. Your results are really compelling and the lens is at a better price point than the Nikon 14-24, but slower at 4.0. I was wondering how this lens performs when used in night sky photography, i.e. milky way compositions. Have you tested its performance under those conditions?
Mark R
December 13, 2017 7:58 am
Hi Nasim,
As always, I greatly appreciate your thoughtful and thorough analyses and WONDERFUL images that truly set your reviews apart. Thank you!
I do have a question. In studying the Imatest scores in the section above entitled ” 10) Sharpness test” I note that the values shown for the Nikon 16-35 are considerably different (higher) than what is shown for this same Nikon 16-35 in your much more recent review of the Tamron SP 15-30 (photographylife.com/revie…-30mm-f2-8) in the section there entitled ” 16) Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 VC vs Nikon 16-35mm f/4G VR”. I’m not clear why the Imatest scores for this lens vary so much in these two reviews. I am probably missing something here… could you help me to understand what might underlie these different scores?
In advance, thanks so much.
Kestas
July 18, 2017 5:21 pm
Zdrastvuj Nasim, Thank you for the wonderful web site and reviews! I’m torn for a wide angle right now for about 3 month already. First what comes in mind is Nikkor 16-35 f4. You have an excellent opinion about the lens in review of yours. The downside for me is size, but I would survive the weight. I have a 24-70 f2.8g (non VR) and the 16-35 f4 is only a bit shorter so I think it would be too big as a walk around / travel lens . Last year for a trip v Litvu I took only Nikkor 50mm f1.8g since I don’t have any 35mm primes. I had 28mm f1.8g for a while but sold it. In many situations I found 50mm to be just not wide enough on my Nikon D750. I was expecting that of course.I just feel that Nikkor 18-35 f3.5-4.5 which has many glowing reviews would not satisfy me with the image quality next to my Nikkor 24-70 f2.8g and 70-200f4g. You gave just 2 stars for optics in review for the 18-35. Now there is a Tamron 15-30 f2.8 but it is huge and heavy. I’m leaning towards this duo: Nikkor 35mm f2D for travel / universal walk around and Nikkor 20mm 1.8g for landscapes. So for my trip I would take these Nikkors: 20mm f1.8, 35mm f2D and 60mm f2.8D Macro. But I would hate to change them somewhere in a middle of a bridge for a wider perspective for example. While on vacation we all expect convenience. Of course I would prefer zoom and those three: 16-35 and 18-35 and 15-30 have the ideal length for me as the only take one for travel, walk around lens. For example today I had a chance to grab a 16-35 f4 for $750 +$18 shipping pristine on eBay from Louisiana. The auction ended with no bids jus because of very high starting bid but I still hesitated to get it. I would greatly appreciate your input / advice if you’ll find some time. Spasibo, Kestas
Actually I was wrong by # of stars for optical performance. I messed it with D version………..
halo9
May 4, 2017 8:23 pm
Just wondering if many other people have observed the red streak issue when shooting LE and high ISO with this lens? When shooting at night with a 20-30s exposure at 3200iso I get a red vertical streak in the lower right of the frame. If you google this issue many people have replicated it on different camera’s and the band is sometimes located in different parts of the frame but always looks the same. Very annoying as makes it impossible to shoot long exposures.
Hi , did you hide your viewfinder? I got this red streak when I forget to hide it. Try it.
Mhmd
April 19, 2016 3:23 pm
Hello Nassim. Thank you for your awesome reviews. I got really lost comparing wide angle lenses using the imatest results you provided for the 16-35 F4 VR.The results are very different on other lens reviews from the results here.. any idea why this happened ? If it’s a small mistake can you please update the results ? Thank you so much for all the time you spend reviewing. We all appreciate the good work you do.
I would agree with Jakb its distortion is unusable for architectural or interior photography. I use several other lenses with the Nikon 17 35, 2.8 ed an excellent lens including Zeiss Contax lenses with absolutely superb optics. Newer definitely does not mean better.
Thanks for the review. But…can you downgrade this lens to a silver award. Because its probably the worst Nikkor when it comes down to distortion and corner sharpness.
Thanks and happy Holidays.
Hi Nasim,
Have you had an opportunity to assess how this lens performs with the NikonD850?
Thanks,
Rob
Hi Nasim,
Have you had an opportunity to assess how this lens performs with the NikonD850? Thanks, Rob
I love shooting landscape with my nikon 24-120mm f/4 lens in my nikon d750 camera by using square filters . Now would it be worthy to buy nikon 16-35mm f/4 lens for the sake of focal length from 16 to 23mm? Are there any changes in my landscape photography after being upgraded to nikon 16-35mm lens?
With regards
I’ve been looking into ultra wide angle lenses. Your results are really compelling and the lens is at a better price point than the Nikon 14-24, but slower at 4.0. I was wondering how this lens performs when used in night sky photography, i.e. milky way compositions. Have you tested its performance under those conditions?
Hi Nasim,
As always, I greatly appreciate your thoughtful and thorough analyses and WONDERFUL images that truly set your reviews apart. Thank you!
I do have a question. In studying the Imatest scores in the section above entitled ” 10) Sharpness test” I note that the values shown for the Nikon 16-35 are considerably different (higher) than what is shown for this same Nikon 16-35 in your much more recent review of the Tamron SP 15-30 (photographylife.com/revie…-30mm-f2-8) in the section there entitled ” 16) Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 VC vs Nikon 16-35mm f/4G VR”. I’m not clear why the Imatest scores for this lens vary so much in these two reviews. I am probably missing something here… could you help me to understand what might underlie these different scores?
In advance, thanks so much.
Zdrastvuj Nasim,
Thank you for the wonderful web site and reviews! I’m torn for a wide angle right now for about 3 month already. First what comes in mind is Nikkor 16-35 f4. You have an excellent opinion about the lens in review of yours. The downside for me is size, but I would survive the weight. I have a 24-70 f2.8g (non VR) and the 16-35 f4 is only a bit shorter so I think it would be too big as a walk around / travel lens . Last year for a trip v Litvu I took only Nikkor 50mm f1.8g since I don’t have any 35mm primes. I had 28mm f1.8g for a while but sold it. In many situations I found 50mm to be just not wide enough on my Nikon D750. I was expecting that of course.I just feel that Nikkor 18-35 f3.5-4.5 which has many glowing reviews would not satisfy me with the image quality next to my Nikkor 24-70 f2.8g and 70-200f4g. You gave just 2 stars for optics in review for the 18-35. Now there is a Tamron 15-30 f2.8 but it is huge and heavy.
I’m leaning towards this duo: Nikkor 35mm f2D for travel / universal walk around and Nikkor 20mm 1.8g for landscapes. So for my trip I would take these Nikkors: 20mm f1.8, 35mm f2D and 60mm f2.8D Macro. But I would hate to change them somewhere in a middle of a bridge for a wider perspective for example. While on vacation we all expect convenience.
Of course I would prefer zoom and those three: 16-35 and 18-35 and 15-30 have the ideal length for me as the only take one for travel, walk around lens. For example today I had a chance to grab a 16-35 f4 for $750 +$18 shipping pristine on eBay from Louisiana. The auction ended with no bids jus because of very high starting bid but I still hesitated to get it.
I would greatly appreciate your input / advice if you’ll find some time.
Spasibo, Kestas
Actually I was wrong by # of stars for optical performance. I messed it with D version………..
Just wondering if many other people have observed the red streak issue when shooting LE and high ISO with this lens? When shooting at night with a 20-30s exposure at 3200iso I get a red vertical streak in the lower right of the frame. If you google this issue many people have replicated it on different camera’s and the band is sometimes located in different parts of the frame but always looks the same. Very annoying as makes it impossible to shoot long exposures.
Hi , did you hide your viewfinder? I got this red streak when I forget to hide it. Try it.
Hello Nassim.
Thank you for your awesome reviews.
I got really lost comparing wide angle lenses using the imatest results you provided for the 16-35 F4 VR.The results are very different on other lens reviews from the results here.. any idea why this happened ? If it’s a small mistake can you please update the results ?
Thank you so much for all the time you spend reviewing.
We all appreciate the good work you do.