Comments on: Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR Review

By: Thuy Nguyen

Thuy Nguyen — Sun, 20 May 2012 23:32:42 +0000

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

By: Henra

Henra — Mon, 07 May 2012 03:15:55 +0000

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?

By: Michael

Michael — Sat, 28 Apr 2012 12:41:12 +0000

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

By: Diego

Diego — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 08:03:57 +0000

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)?

By: Claude

Claude — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 14:10:43 +0000

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

By: Sridhar

Sridhar — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 02:45:22 +0000

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.

By: R

Fri, 20 Apr 2012 23:33:37 +0000

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.

By: STEVE

STEVE — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 16:09:29 +0000

+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!

By: Gian

Gian — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 01:05:51 +0000

Suggest you read ” Rational Lens Choice” on Thom Hogan’s website ( bythom.com). GE

By: jeff

jeff — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 17:25:19 +0000

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