Hands-on review: Nikon 16-35mm f/4.0 AFS VR G zoom lens
L to R: 14-24mm f/2.8, 16-35mm f/4 and 17-35 f/2.8 Nikkor zooms
I received my copy of the much-anticipated 16-35mm f/4.0 AFS VR G zoom Nikkor lens last week, and I have done some preliminary testing. My basic tests fall into the following categories:
- Build/Handling
- Optical Performance
- Comparisons with other lenses
For this test, I compared the new super wide-angle zoom with its Nikon competition for FX:
- 14-24mm f/2.8 AFS G
- 17-35mm f/2.8 AFS
Both of these lenses are generally considered to be high-end “pro” glass, and they each cost significantly more than the 16-35mm VR.
Build and handling
The 16-35mm f/4 VR is longer and slightly lighter than either the 14-24mm or the 17-35mm. In fact, this lens handles a lot like the 24-70mm f/2.8 AFS G zoom Nikkor. As with the Nikon pro lenses, the zoom ring is nearest the base of the lens and the focus ring is towards the distal end of the barrel. There seems to be a bit more plastic in the construction of the lens housing than in the 17-35mm, but I’m not sure. Nevertheless, the lens has a good feel and handles well on my D3s body. The addition of Nikon’s VR II system allows hand-holding down to very slow shutter speeds. I can get sharp images at 1/15s with this lens with little difficulty. That helps make up for the slower f/4 aperture as compared to the 14-24mm and 17-35mm Nikkors.
Optical Performance
My initial quickie test shots caused me to more formal testing. Suddenly, my 17-35mm looked mushy anywhere but the center of the frame, even though the 17-35mm has an extra stop of performance wide-open. At f/5.6, the 16-35mm was clearly sharper than the 17-35mm beyond the center of the frame. At 16mm wide-open, the extreme corners of the image are distinctly soft, but these clean up quickly past f/5.6. Since I intend to use the 16-35mm as a landscape lens, this doesn’t bother me at all. I did a more formal test and included the 14-24mm f/2.8 as another comparison. Clearly, there is a reason why people consider the 14-24mm a “legendary” optic. The 14-24mm is absolutely amazing, even wide open, in sharpness across the frame and minimal distortion. The 16-35mm f/4 has some light fall-off wide-0pen (pretty minor, though) and noticeable barrel distortion. I don’t make a living shooting brick walls or interiors, so the distortion is not that big a deal to me. CA is very well controlled on the 16-35 f/4, CA was pronounced on the 17-35mm, and nearly absent on the 16-35mm. Not surprisingly, the 14-24mm handles CA exceptionally well, too.
Test shot: 16-35mm at 16mm and f/4.0 (wide-open) Notice the barrel distortion and slight light fall-off in the upper corners.
17-35mm f/2.8 AFS at 17mm and f/4.0. Notice the edge softness and light fall-off.
The 14-24mm f/2.8 Nikkor shows very little distortion or light fall-off at 16mm and f/4.0.
To see the full suite of full-size test shots I made with all three lenses, click here.
Conclusion: Comparisons with the 14-24mm f/2.8 and 17-35mm f/2.8
The new Nikkor 16-35mm f/4.0 AFS VR G lens is the least expensive of the three super-wide FX zoom options. Its performance, however, exceeds that of the 17-35mm in my testing. It has better sharpness, handles CA better and has better contrast than the 17-35mm. The 14-24mm f/2.8, however, is still the hands-down winner in terms of optical performance. Note that the 14-24mm f/2.8 also costs $600 more, won’t accept front filters, and has a zoom range that only goes to 24mm (which is still quite wide, even for landscapes). The 17-35mm f/2.8 Nikkor is at a disadvantage against either of these two lenses, unless you need a fast (f/2.8) lens that has an aperture ring. Older cameras (film bodies) will not work with “G” Nikon lenses, so the 17-35mm is the best choice there. Also, because the extreme edges of slide film are often not preserved (unless you scan unmounted slides), the corner performance drop-off of the 17-35mm might not be a big deal to film shooters.
Performance Round-up: 16-35mm f/4.0 AFS VR G zoom Nikkor
Strengths
- Excellent optical performance at f/5.6 and above– sharpness and CA control are excellent
- Good contrast and color saturation
- VR system enables hand-holding at slow shutter speeds
- Accepts 77mm front filters
- Significantly less expensive than the 14-24mm or 17-35mm Nikkors
Weaknesses
- Barrel distortion at short focal lengths
- Maximum f/4 aperture won’t help freeze action in low-light conditions
- Longer than the 17-35mm and 14-24mm
- Cost– even though the price is much nicer than the 14-24mm and 17-35mm, it is still a $1250 lens.
I purchased my lens from Roberts Imaging.
March 2nd, 2010 at 2:14 PM
Thank you very much for great reviews
and very helpful full size sample.
March 2nd, 2010 at 2:35 PM
Thanks for taking the time to post this. I need a new Super Wide and it’s between the 16-35 and 14-24 but I feel I will regret if I don’t go for the 14-24…
March 3rd, 2010 at 2:28 AM
Jason,
Could I leave you some sugestions?
1.Check flare&ghost control and contrast with the new lens. Compare it to the 17-35/2.8. (but don`t place the sun inside the frame for any testing shot as others like to do in their useless tests!)
2.Check the new lens for the maximum handholding speed using the VR feature.
IMHO this are the only important things to be tested on the new lens. Pixel peeping is for non-ohotographers interest… we all know this new lens should be more AND less like the 17-35/2.8.
I`m truly interested in this new lens, but I don`t find anybody testing it from a realistic point of view. Sincerely.
Thanks, JA.
March 3rd, 2010 at 4:09 AM
You can use G-lenses on a lot of film-bodies, some limitted to only ‘auto’, P and S.
March 3rd, 2010 at 5:24 AM
As I mentioned, “optical performance” is merely one aspect of rating a lens. I make no claims about Nano Crystal coat other than it probably explains the better CA handling and contrast performance of the new lens as compared to the 17-35mm I’ve used the lens hand-held with VR to get sharp shots at 1/15s, which is perfectly good enough for me. As for “realistic” testing– you are absolutely correct. I don’t personally dwell on MTF charts other than to get a starting point of view as to what the lens is theoretically capable of. My test was only intended to compare sharpness, distortion and CA across the three super-wide FX Nikkors.
At this point, I’m more than happy with the 16-35mm, and any further “testing” will be informal at best.
-Jason
March 3rd, 2010 at 5:26 AM
Bodies that do not have an aperture control dial on the body will be very limited with G-type lenses, as you’ll only be able to operate at f/22 or so.
March 3rd, 2010 at 1:52 PM
Thank you, Jason.
Any chance to look at the NEFs?
March 3rd, 2010 at 3:48 PM
Thank you, Jason.
In your landscape work, do you find 16 to be a significant liability compared with 14 mm?
March 4th, 2010 at 2:03 PM
The nano-coat reduces internal reflections, it doesn’t do anything at all to CA.
March 4th, 2010 at 2:08 PM
OK, OK– I get it. You all have beaten me up over this quite enough now. I have edited my post accordingly.
March 4th, 2010 at 2:09 PM
Not at all. In fact, for landscape work, I’d rather have the 35mm at the long end than 14mm at the wide end. Only a very small proportion of my landscape shots require anything wider than 18mm.
March 6th, 2010 at 6:23 AM
very good review and nice description, helpful for newbie like me
March 6th, 2010 at 2:11 PM
I just finished testing this lens and generally agree with your findings. However, my sample had a serious problem. Shooting a medium tan/brown building side in direct sun I was amazed at the corner color shift at f4 on 16mm and less so on 35mm. Using the Info tool in PS CS4 I went from 194-192-188 at f11 to 184-194-205 at f4 (same identical area). That’s a very noticeable color shift!!! This was on the left side mostly, but also on the right side. Then testing 16mm I got the same weird results. There was some vignetting, as would be expected, but not this color shift!
March 9th, 2010 at 2:42 PM
Steve, you are everywhere with your non-issue, seriously. Go out and shoot and stop worrying about brick walls.
March 11th, 2010 at 5:35 AM
Steve-
Sounds like something was defective in your lens. I don’t see this problem at all. I’d get a new one, pronto.
March 11th, 2010 at 7:43 AM
Hey Jason, thanks for the quick hands on. I purchased this lens and I am very happy with it. Do you have any idea when Capture NX2 will support it in distortion control. Again, thanks.
March 11th, 2010 at 8:25 AM
Anyone test this lens with a D3x?
March 11th, 2010 at 9:58 AM
Nice review, Jason. One minor detail needs fixing near the top: you have the 17-35mm f/2.8 as a ‘G’ lens. It’s a ‘D’ lens (which you mention in the text further on).
March 11th, 2010 at 10:46 AM
This lens did not preform very well on the Photozone testing. If you already own the 17-35 or 14-24 I see no reason whatsoever to buy the new lens.
March 11th, 2010 at 11:08 AM
It blew away the 17-35mm in my testing. My findings matched that of my colleage, as well.
March 11th, 2010 at 4:16 PM
Jason:
Thanks for the review sounds like a great and almost affordable addition to my camera bag. I shoot Architectural photography, and would love to see how it shoots a interior room at its widest and at f-11. I use a tripod so the VR is just bling-bling to me.
Again thanks
Dick Wood
March 11th, 2010 at 5:07 PM
I love the feel of the 16-35 and the optical performance is as explained above. I use it for landscapes and travel more than my 14-24 becasue it is lighter, takes a filter and has a nice feel on my D700. Nikon has a winner with this lens. Now if they would update the 24-120 VR.
March 13th, 2010 at 9:08 PM
Good comment James. I also use mine for landscapes.
March 14th, 2010 at 6:25 PM
Thanks for the review Dr. Odell. After using this lens for a few weeks, I think I generally agree with your findings.
I sold my 17-35 after I went FX because I didn’t thing I’d need to go that wide. Have since changed my mind so tried the 16-35. One not on handling: I think it balances much better on my D700 than the 17-35 did on my D200.
Regarding the optics, I find it excellent from f/5.6 at all FLs and from f/4 from 20mm-35mm.
March 16th, 2010 at 11:08 AM
Thanks for this review..I plan on purchasing this with a D3X very soon, should work great for the Landscape work I do..
March 19th, 2010 at 3:47 AM
is this camera available in Indian market? whats the price? I wish to buy it urgently.
March 20th, 2010 at 3:17 AM
Very good test, complies well to my limited experience (no 17-35). Going from DX to FX two month ago a tested my major lenses from the film days and decided to buy the 16-35, having already the 14-24. This due to the decision, not to go the 24-70mm/2.8 way, but to reuse my 35-70/ 3.5 AIs (62mm) lens and the 16-35 as low angle extension. (The old lens surprised me with really excellent pictures)
The 16-35 result at 12 Megapixel (D700) are really very good, except the extreme corners which are way to soft at 16mm and F4 – but only around 16mm and improves slowly stopping down.
The main quality is its capability with difficult light, the color rendition and the handling. Further a 16-35mm range allows me to keep out of changing lenses to often in the field.
March 26th, 2010 at 1:02 AM
[...] Jason Odell has written one of the first reviews of Nikon’s new 16-35mm zoom lens and compares it to the 14-24mm f/2.8 and 17-35mm f/2.8 Nikkor wide-angle zooms. Read more… [...]
April 10th, 2010 at 10:56 PM
Hey there, I am just getting into this SLR world so as a consequence I bought the Nikon D90, ya I know its not high end but its a great camera and I am banking on putting my loot into the lenses rather than the camera… So, have any of you put the 14-24 or the 16-35 on this camera.. if so, what was the outcome please…
April 11th, 2010 at 5:30 AM
The 14-24 and 16-35mm Nikkors are designed for FX “Full-Frame” bodies. They will work fine on a D90, but you won’t get the same angle of view. If you want extreme wide-angle with the D90, you should consider the 12-24 or 10-24mm DX Nikkors.
April 11th, 2010 at 10:54 AM
To Destiny:
I used the 14-24 on the D200 over 2 years – not all to much (weight etc). The 16-35mm I have not tried on the D200 – but with a D90 I would go for the 16-85mm DX lens, which shows excellent results – except some limitations at 16mm, curable by post processing (what you also should do with the 16-35mm – for distortions). The only negative side is: It is a slow lens – partly compensated by VR.
April 12th, 2010 at 7:28 PM
Oh thank you guys… I sure hope I have done the right thing by ordering the Nikon AF DX Fisheye-Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8G ED before consulting you guys, please tell me I did the right thing! I love wide angle and pano images. I want to create high-end VR movies… I have researched it so much. If any of you need help in this area I will be more than happy to point you the right direction regarding software…. Jason, I have checked out the 12-24 at http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1224.htm and the 10-24 at http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/10-24mm.htm both of which are links to reviews, now I know the right lenses to buy. Thank you so much. I think the 12-24 example images look great and they were taken using a D70 so I would like to think that if taken using the D90 they would come out as good or better. Ernest, I also checked out the 16-35 at http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/16-85mm.htm I love the idea of VR and at least you can turn it off if it gets too slow, but at least it has this option. Thank you, both of you…. Now I just have to decide which one to buy!!
April 12th, 2010 at 7:48 PM
Here’s a tip: Take EVERYTHING KR says with a grain of salt– he is a modern day snake oil salesman. The 10.5 fisheye is a great lens, but it is worthless for panos. For panos you actually would be better off with a 50 or 85mm lens. If you shoot DX, you’re probably better off with the 16-85VR or the new 10-24mm DX lens.
April 12th, 2010 at 10:01 PM
Thank you Jason.. not sure what you mean though… Every review I have read about the 10.5 are all positive for what it is designed for.. To use the lens as intended would be a matter of having special software to turn the images into a VR Pano Movie though… Check this link out… and be amazed…!!
http://krpano.com/examples/vtour/
Its based on the Cubic way of making Virtual Reality (VR) movies, the most advanced way of doing things in the VR world….
Anyway.. I took your advice and have ordered the 12-24. It has some great reviews and I now feel this is the one for me… The example images on all of the reviews are just great.. I thought I would be swayed onto the VR Wide Angle suggested by Ernest but after reading the reviews and seeing example images, its not great!! Anyway.. the 12-24 is on order… Thank you for all your help on that lens…
May I just pick your brains just a bit more… I have a need to take wedding and portrait photos of high quality … I like to sick with Nikon.. How to you feel about the Nikon AF 85mm f/1.4D IF for my D90. Is it ok.. All the reviews I have read seem to suggest so… Thank you
April 12th, 2010 at 11:26 PM
Sorry.. I got off track a bit from your original ‘Hands-on-review”…. I get all excited about lenses!!!
D
April 13th, 2010 at 12:46 PM
Destiny-
My point was not that the 10.5 fisheye is a bad lens–it is a great lens. However, it produces so much distortion that it is not the choice for panoramas. The 85mm f/1.4 is a fantastic lens (and has a price to match). You can get very good results with the 85 f/1.8 as well. You might also consider a 50mm f/1.4 or 50mm f/1.8 for portraits on a DX body.
-Jason
April 30th, 2010 at 1:09 PM
Thanks for this great review. Much appreciated.
June 8th, 2010 at 2:18 AM
It’s refreshing to read a review by a person who actually knows how to take pictures – thanks! I very much agree with what you write about the 16-35. May I add a point or two:
* There’s a lot of barrel distortion at 16mm, as you’ve mentioned, but it’s practically gone at ~20mm. I think this barrel distortion is a none issue for most landscape work, and for architecture, it’s a question if one can work at 18mm or better 20mm, or fix it in PP.
* The 16-35 shows high resistance to flare.