I have been playing with the new Nikon 16-35mm f/4.0 VR lens and I must say, this thing is sweet! The first thing that wondered me when I grabbed the lens, was to see if VR is truly useful on an ultra wide zoom lens like this. Well, after some quick tests, I must say that VR truly does work the magic!
Take a look at this shot at 1/10th of a second that I shot hand-held in a very dark restaurant:
Nikon 16-35mm f4.0 VR - 17mm, 1/10 @ f/4.0, ISO 3200
I shot 5-6 frames at the same shutter speed and every single one of them came out tack sharp:
Nikon 16-35mm f4.0 VR - 100% Crop
The real test awaited outside. As we walked out of the restaurant, I shot this scene in Denver downtown at 1/3rd of a second hand-held! Those clouds were barely visible to the eye.
Nikon 16-35mm f4.0 VR - 20mm, 1/3 @ f/4.0, ISO 3200
And here is the 100% crop:
Nikon 16-35mm f4.0 VR - 100% Crop
Wow, I want all of my wide lenses to have VR now! Nikon, seriously, please give us the Nikon 14-24mm VR and Nikon 24-70mm VR soon! :)
About Nasim Mansurov
Hi Nasim,
Thanks for this quick review. It looks like those of us who can’t afford the f/2.8 lenses may be interested in this f/4 associated with VR. I hope to see more Nikkor f/4 lenses soon
Thanks
PS: if you still get the spam link in this post please let me know
Joaquim, you are most welcome! Yes, the new Nikon 16-35mm f/4.0 sets a new standard for ultra-wide image stabilization and I am so far very impressed with its optics and performance. I will be taking this lens to a real test this weekend and will post my results next week, with a thorough review afterwards :)
I’m not getting spam anymore, so thank you!
Have you compared the D700 against the D3x? Forgetting the price, if you can. Each camera with the same lens and images enlarged in 30×40″ range. I am shooting with the D700 and have had really good images at 20×30.
Really like your image of Window Arch.
Thanks
Terry, I have just noticed that I never responded to your comment – I am sorry about that.
In terms of D700 vs D3x comparison, I wish I could, but I think it would be a very unfair comparison, since the D3x would nail the D700 in every way for landscape photography… At 30×40″, the D3x images would be far superior and more detailed compared to the images from the D700 – I have no doubt about that.
Thank you for your feedback on my Window Arch image!
Terry,
I am interested in the quality of 20×30 images with the d700. Could u please contact me with processing info and a link to your photography. I am trying to decide between the 5d mark ii and d700 only thing holding me back is the ability to possibly print better 20×30 prints with 5d ii? Thanks jeff floatslayer@yahoo.com
I have had great success with my D700. I have sold prints that were in the 30″x40″ in range and they looked great. Prints at that size are printed for me at a lab in Denver, Reed Photo. You can view some of my images at http://www.TerryShapiroPhotography.com. I always use a tripod and generally set the ISO at 200. I also shoot theatre and ballet and have gotten really good results at ISO of up to 3200.
Hope that helps
I have been agonizing about the d700 and three lenses: 135 f2, 85 f1.8 and a short zoom — which brings me to the 19-35 and now, the 16-35. Your comments are leading me to make that third lens the 16-35. (And that Monument Valley shot — out of this world!)
Thank you Ric!
Yes, I am very happy with the 16-35mm and it is certainly better than the 17-35mm in the corners. VR also helps a lot in low-light situations…I hope Nikon can add it to more wide-angle lenses.
hi
can i know if this 16mm is sharp?
i try on 16mm f8 but 100% the face look not that sharp
should i add flash in?
This glass on a D800 is even better than the 14-24mm f2.8 ED.