Nikkor 16-35mm F/G ED VR

[Casull]

I am thinking of purchasing this lens, mainly for landscapes and wanted to know if anyone has this lens ands their thoughts.
Cant seem to justify the 14- 24 mm cost and the need to spend a fortune on changing filter systems to suit.
Do you think this is a worthwhile purchase or maybe something else.

Cheers
Craig

[arthurking83]

Yes!

At the moment I have it as a 99.997% certainty that this lens is in my short terms future(~2 yrs or so).
(my main issue is that I have a couple of other things I really want to prioritize before it)

I have the Sigma 12-24 so really don't need it for most of the types of landscapes I like to do(UWA) up to about 20mm in general.

I also got a cheapish filter setup going for it too, although at $150 a pop(Hitechs) the filters aren't exactly cheap .. they're just cheaper than some other brands.
The holder system is where I saved a few dollars in modding a readily bought holder.

Sometimes I think that 16mm may feel a bit restrictive after getting used to 12mm on a regular basis, so I may try to challenge myself in a little while to see if I can stick to 16mm on the Sigma for a bit and not zoom out beyond that.

[salnel]

I bought this lens last year to take to England. I was very happy with the results..it is sharp, has VR, is not too heavy and it did not come off my camera for the the trip. It is paired with my d610 and I am very happy with this combination. :)

[Casull]

Thanks very much for the advice, has confined my thoughts and will be looking around. The cheapest I have seen it at is $1239 (which is about what I what to pay)
As this will suit the Big Stopper, I will start looking in ernest.

Cheers
Craig

[Cage]

How's $1098.95 grab ya with full Nikon Australia warranty.

http://www.ryda.com.au/Nikon-Nikkor-AF-S-16-35mm-f-4G-ED-VR-Lens-p/jaa806dat2.htm

[Lance B]

I have both the 16-35 f4 VR, the 14-24 f2.8. For most of my usage, the 16-35 is the lens I grab. Why? Well, it suffers less from flare than the 14-24, that big bulbous front element gathers light so well it almost seems to have the ability to get flare even when the sun is behind you! If you are on holidays and are at a once in a lifetime location and won't ever go back and the sun is in the wrong position, it means you may miss or muck up that once in a lifetime shot. So, I only use the 14-24 when I can control when and where I shoot and this means leaving it at home when going on a trip.

The 16-35 suffers much less from flare, in fact, I have never had it ruin a shot yet. Also, VR is very, very handy for inside all those dark buildings, churches and castles etc when you are travelling as well as great for night photography. The 16-35 does suffer from quite pronounced distortion at 16mm and can be a bit soft in the corners at these very wide angles under about 20mm, but stop it down and the corners sharpen up beautifully. Distortion can easily be corrected in post process and I have never had a shot ruined by distortion I could fix perfectly. Yes, you may have to compose your shot with it in mind that you may lose a bit when correcting, but that is no big deal. In many instances you don't have to fix it 100% anyway.

From about 20mm to 24mm, the 16-35 is actually a tad better than the 14-24 once stopped down to f8. From 20-30mm it is a superb zoom and from 16-30 it is still excellent if you stop it down. Over 30mm it the sharpness drops off a tad but it is still very good. When travelling, I use the 16-35 as a 16-30 lens and then swap to the Nikon 24-70 as this is a good change over point for both lenses, ie using them at their best focal lengths respectively.

I have been to Europe, UK 3 times in the last 4 years and the 16-35 probably takes 65% of my photos.

D800E + 16-35 f4 VR, at 22mm, f9, ISO100, 20sec exposure, tripod, remote release.

Bruge, Belgium at about 11:00 at night.

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/image/151693346/original.jpg

D800E + 16-45 f4 VR, at 16mm, f11, 1/125sec, ISO100. Other than the backward tilting perspective (I purposely left it a little backward tilting), there is no issue with distortion here. Corner to corner sharpness as well.

Notre-Dame of Reims Cathedral

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/image/153406150/original.jpg

To be able to shoot inside buildings with VR is such a bonus.

D700 + 16-35 f4 VR, at 16mm, f14, 1/5sec, ISO1600 handheld

Inside Le Chateau de Bussy-Rabutin, Bourgogne, France

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/image/155382273/original.jpg

No bent lines here

D700 + 16-35 f4 VR at 16mm, f14, 1/60sec, ISO400

Le Chateau de Bussy-Rabutin, Bourgogne, France

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/image/126315312/original.jpg

D700 + 16-35 f4 VR at 18mm, f13, 1/200sec, ISO200

St Georges Chapel, Windsor Castle

http://www.pbase.com/lance_b/image/127297377/original.jpg

[Casull]

Thanks for the input guys, Cage that price is for a refurb lens (Still with Nikon warranty)
And Lance your shots are great and good to hear that this lens is a great performer.
Thanks
Craig

[Cage]

Thanks for the input guys, Cage that price is for a refurb lens (Still with Nikon warranty)Craig

Yes I realise that Craig. It may only have a crumpled corner on the box, or some dimwit returned it because it didn't auto-focus, only because it was set to manual focus. If I didn't have the Samyang 14mm and the Tamron 24-70 it would be on it's way to my place.

Cheers

[torro]

Back up all the comments, I have used this lens on my China trip and outback NSW, just be aware at 16mm vertical distortion occurs dramatically.

[Chris Redman]

I've used this 16-35 on a FX camera & it does take lovely images, especially if you're used to using wide angles to bring out their best. I hadn't used wide angle lenses much before and it did take a while to get used to, but it's a great challenge. I found the fact it's a F4 (as opposed to 2.8) to be no barrier at all, certainly not from a DOF perspective. When I was taking landscapes I almost always used the tripod for nice long shutter speeds with various filters, but it was great to hand-hold too.

[wayn0i]

Casull,

I am also in the same market, I was leaning towards the 16-35 before I started reading the specs and testing reviews for the Nikkor 17-35 AFS. From what Ive read its sharper and largely out performs the 16-35. If you start looking you will find there are 17-35 AF and 17-35 AFS lens. The AFS being the recent iteration.

All that said I dont have either lens and am only relaying what Ive read to this point. I think the 17-35 AFS was well under $1K. Let me know how you go.

[arthurking83]

.....

I am also in the same market, I was leaning towards the 16-35 before I started reading the specs and testing reviews for the Nikkor 17-35 AFS. From what Ive read its sharper and largely out performs the 16-35. If you start looking you will find there are 17-35 AF and 17-35 AFS lens. The AFS being the recent iteration.

.....

Just for a bit of clarification.

Nikon only have one 17-35mm zoom lens and it's the AF-S model. They don't make, and have never made a 17-35mm AF lens.
Other manufacturers may have made a 17-35mm AF type lens for Nikon fit(eg. Tamron used to make a 17-35mm f/2.8-4 screw driven zoom lens).

The lens that the 17-35 AF-S replaced was the 20-35 AF-D lens.

Nikon has made a couple of 18-35mm zoom lenses of both AF-D type and AF-S type .. these are cheaper more consumer oriented lenses tho.

But FWIW: the current 18-35mm AF-S lens is actually quite a good lens. I had a play with one at the last photo show and was impressed by it's IQ.
(that may have been more as a result of having had the older 18-35 AF-D lens which wasn't (really)bad, but not impressive either).

As a cheaper alternative, the 18-35 AF-S is also recommended too.
Personally, while I don't like to spend too much money on lenses, I'd still prefer the 16-35 just because of the sometimes advantageous VR.

[wayn0i]

thanks arthurking your right its 18-35 rather than 17-35.

why does VR cost so much? and is it really necessary. 90% of my landscape images are taken with a tripod. alternatively if i need to hand hold i would open up a little more or lift the iso.

dont get me wrong i understand the vr benefits but we have been taking photos for a long time without it.

just another view lads


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[arthurking83]

Hand held at even moderately fast shutter speeds on the D800E can look quite shaky(when viewed at 100%).

This is where I learned about the value of VR. Would I pay more for it .. prior to the D800E(D300 D70s). Not really, unless it was a sensible cost option(not $1000 or something silly like that).
Now with the D800E, for sure!
I had to update my old Tammy 28-75/2.8 to the latest from Tamron with VC, the 24-70/2.8
I was getting so many missed(looking) images at what I call reasonable shutter speeds(eg. 1/40s at 70mm) it was partially maddening.
Not that I crop heavily or look at images or print them at 100% pixel view .. but if I like to do something well .. well I want it done as good as I can.

One of the lens types I have is the Tamron 70-200/2.8 and when properly setup it can display still good resolution.
But I miss a few shots, where I never used too with the D300 .. so a $700 upgrade to the newer VC model is a reasonable step for me to take in the future( I think ... I hope!).

If you primarily concern yourself with tripod mounted settings .. VR will of course add nothing to your experience .. you will have it switched most of the time.
I can see the 16-35 as a great walkabout lens say for street or architectural shots.
The world is getting much more restrictive about where you can and can't use a tripod nowadays. Apparently the less sociable elements in society intent destroying it( I won't use the T word, just in we're being snooped upon! ;)) .. all use tripod mounted high grade cameras to do their recon work! :rolleyes:
Well that's the feeling you get from security staff with a lower IQ than a D810 at it's lowest ISO level! :D

quickly: a few of us were on a late meetup and ended up at Southern Cross station .. really cool looking roofline! We all got out cameras setup on our tripods and security came up almost immediately and explained to us we can't take photos. All the while with little flashes going off in the background, foreground and peripheries!! :confused:
Aha! so WE can't take photos with our D300's and 7Ds and so on, but 1000 people with their iPhones can.
OK .. so his tactics changed and then began on a line that had some idiotic public safety issue as it's main element. Fair nuff, at least he's kind'a making sense .. except that a few minutes later a small car came hooning up along the walkway between station and a major football stadium. Holden doing a commercial!!
Safety .... my royal Arrrr! (of course the walkway was closed off between driving moments .. but it just seemed so perfectly idiotic nonetheless.

From what I read, many churches have anti tripod policies too ... I'm not religious so have never experienced this first hand.

The way the world is going .. optical stabilisation is just so handy in more and more situations.

I would never use it as a substitute for a tripod. If I was ever out doing landscapes without my tripod(close to impossible anyhow .. but hypothetically speaking) .. I'd use a fence post, bench, wall, railing or any other solidly anchored structure. VR in such a situation would be a final, desperate, last resort.

[salnel]

Arthur is right regarding the use of tripods in many public places. The majority of shots I took in England were handheld as they do not let you use a tripod or flash in so many of the places I visited so VR was invaluable .

[wayn0i]

Yes fair call Arthurking, horses for courses. Youve got to love some of the communities brightest!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[arnica]

I never considered getting this lens until reading this thread.

I currently own a 14-24 nikkor and rarely use it. The only real time I use it is when I'm shooting portrait panos.

Another boost for me getting the 16-35 is that I can use filters with it.

[cupic]

With this lens I bought last year from DCW and now its updated as in price .
Has there been a recent price rise ?


cheers

[Casull]

Just a follow up on this thread, I bought this lens and have just spent 15 days in Tassie and had a great time with it.
This is a fantastic lens but did notice at 16mm it does suffer from some distortion as noted by Arthur, but otherwise great.

Cheers
Craig

[Lance B]

Just a follow up on this thread, I bought this lens and have just spent 15 days in Tassie and had a great time with it.
This is a fantastic lens but did notice at 16mm it does suffer from some distortion as noted by Arthur, but otherwise great.

Cheers
Craig

Glad it turned out well for you.

You can easily correct the distortion in post process.

[NRandall]

I bought one of these earlier this year and really really like it. It stays on my D610 most of the time.
I carry a D7000 with the 24-70mm F2.8 to compliment it.