I bought the 16-35 and was quite impressed, but ultimately traded it back for a 14-24. Distortion was fixable, VR handy at times, center sharpness was very good, but the corner and edge softness was going to be an issue for me.
If I could have afforded both, I would have kept both. The lens is that good. I don't have anything I can post here pic wise, but the 16-35's ability to control flare was amazing. Yes you can include the sun in your picture!
I think when some nicer pics surface (like the ones posted a few above) people will become more at ease about this lens. It's hard to spend $1200 based on brick wall and office desk shots.
gman1339 wrote:
People expect a lot more for $1200? Really? How about people expect too much. It is a Nano coated 16-35 that has better optics than the $1800 Nikkor 17-35 (sharpness, color, resolution, etc.) and also hase 4 stops of VR 2.Oh, and it takes standard 77mm filters, unlike the Nikon 14-24 or Sigma 12-24. If you want a little tiny light lens to carry around, go look at some primes or get a crop camera and some DX lenses.
I see what you did there... You just compared an 11-year-old lens to a modern lens released in 2010. Yes, for $1,200 and that massive footprint of the lens, I fully expect an UWA lens to have sharper corners, this is primarily a landscape focal length after all. This is why I never went for the 17-35 in the first place. I guess this is a good chance for a 3rd party lens to fill in the gap then. We'll see if they can do that with IQ and size, that is mostly what I am looking for.
Steezus wrote:
Yes, for $1,200 and that massive footprint of the lens, I fully expect an UWA lens to have sharper corners, this is primarily a landscape focal length after all.
Based on what? Is there any other UWA zoom lens that can take standard filters and has sharp corners on a full frame camera?
gman1339 wrote:
Based on what? Is there any other UWA zoom lens that can take standard filters and has sharp corners on a full frame camera?
You are right, the 14-24 is the only real option for a full frame wide landscape zoom that is sharp from edge to edge, although it does not take filters. Exactly why the 16-35 is close but not quite for me coming from a landscape perspective. The corners remind me of the Sigma 10-20 on DX. It was a great lens when I had it, but thank heavens for the 14-24!
It seems to me the dividing factor between people who love this lens vs people who think its not up to snuff lies within each photographer' focus point.
In other words if landscape is your primary focus, the 16-35 does a nice job but not for 1250 bucks.
KR likes the 16-35 f/4
Now that I've had the new Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR in my sticky little hands for a couple of days, and got out to my favorite test range in Arizona to do a shoot-out among them, I was astounded at what I saw when I finally called them up on the 30" Apple Cinema Display back at the lab.
If you split pixels, of the 16-35mm f/4 VR and 14-24mm /2.8 AF-S that I shot-off against each other at the range, the smaller, less expensive and more practical 16-35mm f/4 VR is actually a bit sharper than the old 14-24mm /2.8 AF-S!
Mind you, only if you test lenses for a living will you notice the difference between the two, but it scared the heck out of me.
For actual photography, where you're not looking at the corners at 100% as shot in daylight at full aperture, any of Nikon's other ultrawides works just as well for real-world image quality. Scarce few people, myself included, will ever notice any real differences for real subjects worth shooting at normal apertures.
Justin Huffman wrote:
It seems to me the dividing factor between people who love this lens vs people who think its not up to snuff lies within each photographer' focus point.
In other words if landscape is your primary focus, the 16-35 does a nice job but not for 1250 bucks.
Justin,
It looks like the only people complaining about the 16-35 image quality are 14-24 shooters (except Ken R. I guess) . I'm still confused how some of them thought a $1200 standard filter using 16-35 was going to have image quality on par with the 14-24 F/2.8 that has already been given legendary status for an UWA zoom.
It looks like the only people complaining about the 16-35 image quality are 14-24 shooters (except r.gil I guess) . I'm still confused how some of them thought a $1200 standard filter using 16-35 was going to have image quality on par with the 14-24 F/2.8 that has already been given legendary status for an UWA zoom.
It will probably the same with the new 24/1.4. Expectations are often not realistic.
It looks like the only people complaining about the 16-35 image quality are 14-24 shooters (except r.gil I guess) . I'm still confused how some of them thought a $1200 standard filter using 16-35 was going to have image quality on par with the 14-24 F/2.8 that has already been given legendary status for an UWA zoom.
Most of the time, the difference in price for lenses like this is NOT quality - it's speed. An F2.8 lens should be more expensive than an F4 lens. However, more expensive doesn't always mean it has to have better IQ.
Cases in point:
Canon's 70-200 F4 is regarded as one of the best lenses in its range - it's actually said to be every bit as sharp - or even sharper - than Canon's 2.8 lens. It's cheaper, but the cost difference is due to the speed, not the IQ.
In the Nikon camp, I can personally attest that the 300 F4 is every bit as sharp @ F8 as the 300 2.8. However, I only paid a fraction of the price of the 300 2.8 as I did for the 300 F4 (still own both too). The difference in price is, again, because of the F2.8 aperture, not IQ.
When you look at the difference in price between the 14-24 and 16-35, not only is the 16-35 a stop slower, but it's not as wide at the wide end either. (It could be argued that it goes to 35mm, but who buys a lens like this to shoot it at the long end?).
Since the prices are within $600, you'd think the difference would be because the 14-24 is fast and wider. You'd think they would be the same IQ wise, at least by F8. That isn't the case.
All that said, and although I sent mine back, I still think the 16-35 is a good lens. It's just that after shooting with the 14-24, it's hard to step back in IQ. I think there's a perception that people think the 16-35 is junk, and that's simply not true. It's just that 14-24 is sooooo gooooood you can't go back.
r.gil wrote:
If you split pixels, of the 16-35mm f/4 VR and 14-24mm /2.8 AF-S that I shot-off against each other at the range, the smaller, less expensive and more practical 16-35mm f/4 VR is actually a bit sharper than the old 14-24mm /2.8 AF-S!
Please post some pics, since you assessment does not match actual shots that have been posted lately.
