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

/C

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

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

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

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.

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.