Nikon2182 16-35mm F4G ED AF-S VR Zoom Nikkor Lens, Black

I spent a long time wondering if buying the Nikon 16-35mm was going to be a wise choice.I had intended going for the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8, I already own the Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 so it seemed at first to be a no brainer given the 14-24mm's reputation for image quality.Then I did some online research, a whole day in the end, and the choice became increasingly less obvious. Opinion was pretty much divided, no one argued the quality of the 14-24mm but in other areas the choice was less clear cut.I decided to go back to the drawing board and re-evaluate how I would be using the lens.The lens was for intended for landscape so the 16-35mm on an FX body was a good focal length for this.I like to shoot in inclement weather, the Nikon 14-24mm's inability to accept filters so having the front element exposed to wind, sand, sea spray and rain without the protection of a UV filter would have been a major concern.The 16-35mm is an f4, so down a stop on the 14-24mm, and unlike many landscape photographers I rarely use a tripod as I find it gets in the way. Photographing whilst standing on slippery wet boulders can be tricky enough without a tripod to send you flying, so I tend to opt for a monopod or hand hold. So the Vibration Reduction had appeal.Also the for me focal length had an advantage, 16-35mm covers a good spectrum of wide angle use. I try to plan for the lens I need before I go out and shoot. Changing lenses in rough weather is not a good idea to me, not only the risk of unwanted debris entering the camera or rear of the lens, but also the risk of dropping it.On this basis I opted for the 16-35mm f4. So how have I found performance?I ran some tests as far as I was able against my Nikon 24-70 f2.8, I took some shots at 24mm and 35mm on both lenses at the same f-stops, f4 and f8 with my Nikon D800 mounted on a tripod. I then blew these up to 300% in PhotoshopCC on a 27 inch monitor. This way exceeded what I would require of the lens.At 35mm the Nikon 24-70mm appeared to have the advantage in terms of edge to edge sharpness, also for some unknown reason the the 16-35mm seemed to loose colour saturation compared to the 24-70mm. At f8 the 16-35mm was better though not the colour. This was simply adjusted in Photoshop.At 24mm the situation reversed and the results were very noticeably better than those from the 24-70mm at both f stops. The colour saturation problem also disappeared.I also ran some tests at 16mm, though I could not make any direct comparisons, the shots were taken in a conservatory with white chairs that had a wicker pattern on them. At f4 there was no real detail on the chairs at the image edges, at f8 the image improved very dramatically with good detail across the entire frame. This improved still further at f11.All images taken at on the Nikon 16-35mm at f8 and viewed at 100% in Photoshop were impeccable.In the field.If I was still having doubts about my choice these did disappear once out in the wilds. This is a lovely lens to use. At first I thought it felt bit light and plastic for a pro Nikon lens, but once on the D800 it felt very well balanced and a very comfortable weight. It is fully weather sealed and suffered no mishaps when shooting close up to water falls despite getting fairly wet.The quality of the images has not disappointed in any way. I think what counts are the results you get in the field, and this lens really delivers, also I experienced no issues at 35mm.Also there is a significant price difference between the 14-24mm and the 16-35mm, large enough in fact to buy another piece of kit.Perhaps if I ever take up interior photography I will take another look at the 14-24mm.

Hello there,As a full time professional photographer lens purchases are something I do after lots of research and after trying them out first. As a Nikon shooter I have owned 2 copies of the 14-24mm lens which is a truly stunning lens but very heavy and the bulbous end makes it a bit of a pain.A few weeks ago a friend of mine lent me the 16-35mm F4 Nikon Lens, I was dubious at first as its an F4 lens but with the VR I can easily hand hold this lens to around 1/5th of a second hand held, this means I can get amazing tac sharp images even in poor light (I am mainly a wedding photographer) and having used this lens for 3 weddings since owning it, I cant get over how great it is.I have also found that I use this lens a lot more than the 14-24. The 14-24 was great but I only ever used it during the church service or the occasional bridal preparation shot for speeches. The 16-35 stays one of my cameras and gets used throughout the whole day.Let me now address the doubters there, although this lens is an F4, which is in theory a lot slower than a 1.4 or 2.8 lens, at this focal length its not an issue, and at F4 the lens is super sharp, at 5.6 its amazing. The clarity and contrast of the images this lens produces is equal to at the very least my 24-70, 70-200 VR2 and my 85 1.4This is a truly beautiful lens, light compared to other pro lenses it produces really great images and has a more versatile range than the 14-24mmA great lens. I am trying to find something bad to say about the lens but in all honesty I cannot.

Date of purchase: 03/08/2015There are far more detailed reviews here as well as on the net; so I'll keep it simple:1) the 16-35mm is lighter (680g versus 1000g) than the 14-24mm. One can argue that if you're shooting landscape and the lens is mounted on a tripod, the weight doesn't matter. Well, who's going to carry it there? :)2) the 16-35mm is cheaper (£829 versus approx. £1200) than the 14-24mm. That's highly subjective to your budget, but £370 is a considerable sum which can be invested back in your photography gear.3) As if the 14-24mm isn't bulky enough, please Google pictures of the 14-24mm with the Lee filter system; it's an absolute behemoth.4) The 16-35mm range on this is far more practical allowing it to act as a landscape/street photography hybrid. The 2mm loss on the wide end is considerable but at 16mm you are already quite wide. If you are going to lose sleep over the 2mm, then get the 14-24mm, simple as.5) F2.8 to F4 is a full one stop reduction... that's definitely a big deal if you're considering this for night sky photography; if that's the primary use then by all means grab the 14-24mm! However my hypothesis is this is a primarily a landescape lens in which case you'll have a lot more in focus wide open at F4 than at F2.8. It terms of light loss, given that both are likely to be mounted on a tripod (see point above), then really the F2.8 is no longer as a big loss at it first appears (no pun intended).6)The addition of VR may encourage you to use this handheld, a far more enjoyable experience than a tripod/cable release combo.I hope I have convinced you to save yourself and your wallet some serious cash which you can spend on some filters, etcI'll be posting some sample photos following the bank holiday weekend so you can judge the lens sharpness, distortion for yourselves etc

This is a good lens that I used for a while but the quality was not there for me. I changed to the 14to24mm and the difference is clear. Great lens

Hola, La verdad recomiendo este lente funciona muy bien en situaciones de poca luz, ideal para fotos de ciudad.en 16mm si existe algo de distorsión pero en 20mm en delante trabaja muy bien.

Extremely sharp and high performance lens for landscape shooting.

I recieved this lens last week, and it is as tough as nails... Crystal clear photos right through the focal range... Very well constructed and feels like quality... Personally I would only use it with a tripod as the weight of the lens and the D780 tends to get a bit heavy handheld for to length a time... But very happy with this lens

Had the Nikkor 14-24 for a few years, picture quality is just top notch! But it's heavy and troublesome to carry 150mm square filter system around!Finally took up the courage to purchase this 16-35, it's now Made In Thailand. Have been using it for 2 weeks, focusing speed is fast and accurate. Pictures are sharp, centre to corner, closeup and infinity range. But there is also barrel distortion at 16-18mm, avoid shooting interior at these range.

So far this is an excellent lens. I'm using it with a Nikon D750. I tried the Nikon 18-35. It was very light weight but I needed something a little wider for interior architectural shots as I noted during a session at the Baltimore cathedral. I wasn't happy with people shots. Couldn't find the right amount of DOF. I tried the Tokina 16-35 but it is very heavy and the distortion made bad for people shots. It did good work on interiors but I didn't like the exposed glass. I previously used the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 DX when I used a D7000. That lens had a lot of distortion and I basically used it once year for a family group sho that I had to correct in post production. The FX 16-35 is not too heavy and has internal focusing and zooming. It's very sharp and great for architecture and people. I took shots of people sitting across from me at a table at 16mm without much distortion. The D750 removes the distortion that does show at 16mm and it is not a problem at 24mm. I compared it in a store with the Nikon 14-24. I saw a lot of distortion of people with that lens but a lot less on interior straight lines. It was slightly sharper than the 16-35, but not $1000 sharper and once again, at 16mm the d750 removed the distortion in camera. All in all this is a great compromise in weight with the 18-35 and in sharpness with the 14-24 at a reasonable price. I am happy so far.