Comments on: Hands-on review: Nikon 16-35mm f/4.0 AFS VR G zoom lens

By: Tommy Westberg

Tommy Westberg — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 20:37:50 +0000

In the middle the 17-35mm is sharper but in the corners the 16-35mm is slightly sharper, had both lenses at f/8, tested at 16mm/17mm, 24mm and 35mm.
I might have a lemon of 16-35mm!?

By: Jason Odell

Jason Odell — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 16:08:56 +0000

In the corners wide-open? The 17-35mm is sharp, but the corners on my sample were mushy until f/8. And what’s the point of an f/2.8 lens if you need to stop it down to f/8 for sharp results?

By: Tommy Westberg

Tommy Westberg — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 10:11:28 +0000

Hello!

Ive tested Nikkor 16-35mm VR vs Nikkor 17-35mm, and I must say that the 17-35mm is the sharper of them!!

By: Ernaldo

Ernaldo — Fri, 09 Dec 2011 15:05:50 +0000

I bought this lens based on your review, and its working out great. Although I don’t shoot brown walls and such, I find the little distortion at the wide end totally and easily fixable in CS5. I use it on a D700, and it my favorite combo. I also own the 24-70 2.8, so that’s making quite a claim. Thanks………

By: Tim Wilkinson

Tim Wilkinson — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 15:02:14 +0000

Very interesting comments on here as I’ve just got hold of a 14-24 to replace my 17-35 (for D700). I didn’t bother with the 16-35 because of various articles I’ve read not rating it above the 17-35! Anyway, I will soon be able to have a look at both and compare although I’m not sure I won’t miss the 35 end for one lens convenience in street photog, we shall see. Must just comment of your ‘Snake Oil Salesmen’ comment re KR’s opinions on life… I’m still laughing as it just so apt. What is so sad is that so many people starting out take this man’s words as gospel…. the more honest folks who educate against this should be rewarded… same applies to Mr Kelby’s apostles!!

By: Douglas Ritchie

Douglas Ritchie — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 23:10:39 +0000

I agree completely with Jason, I got rid of my 17-35 2.8 when I tried the 16-35 it is far sharper in the corners 1 stop down and far better contrast,I love it.

By: Shadow

Shadow — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 19:58:02 +0000

I have read and read again my favorite reviewers on NikonLinks about this lens, since it came out. Your review sold me. The review was informative and honest with the three photo examples of Nikons wide zooms. The distortion at 16mm that some people make hay about is really no big deal.

On the D700, as you said, can make the 16-35mm a nice indoor lens as well. I live in the DC area so most of my shooting will be outside of monuments, land marks, government buildings with-in the guidelines and some of the most beautiful scenery Virginia and West Virginia have to offer.

Thanks Jason

By: Jason Odell

Jason Odell — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:51:08 +0000

Iain-
If your 16-35mm isn’t as sharp or sharper (especially in the center) as the 17-35mm, you’ve got a defective lens or are using poor technique. I, and others, have found that the 17-35mm only rivaled the 16-35mmm in sharpness at f/8 or above. Granted, there are lots of things that can affect image sharpness– focus errors, motion blur, camera shake, etc. But the 16-35mm by all accounts is one sharp lens and made my 17-35mm look like a coke bottle in comparison. It is possible your lens is out of alignment, either due to a factory defect or hard use.

As for the small flange you describe, I see what you’re talking about, but I guess I’m weird in that I always replace my rear lens caps when I put my lenses back in my bag for extended transport. The only time that I don’t do this is when I’ve got the bag on the ground and I’m working directly from it, or with a lens in a pouch. I put my lenses into the bag front element down. With all due respect, it sounds like you are harder on your gear than I am.

By: Iain Masterton

Iain Masterton — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 08:35:38 +0000

I traded my ancient 17-35mm f2.8 for this lens about 8 months ago.

I am not that impressed with it so far for a couple of reasons.

Firstly it doesn’t seem nearly as sharp as the 17-35mm at any aperture even in the centre of the image.

Secondly and most importantly, there is a tiny protruding metal lug on the base of the lens that slots into the camera mount. It breaks off. I am heading off to Nikon today to get this fixed for the second time. Let me repeat. The lug protrudes from the lens and so is impacted every time you put the lens back in your bag .

I don’t replace the rear lens cap every time – who does when out shooting?

This is an obvious design fault and might make me sell the lens.

I’d be interested to hear if anyone else has had to rpair the lens because of this…

Rgds
Iain

By: Jason Odell

Jason Odell — Fri, 06 May 2011 15:03:32 +0000

The 16-35mm is fine for indoor shooting, especially on a camera where you have high ISO capability, like a D700 or D3(s). It has noticeably more distortion than the 14-24mm, but neither of these lenses are perspective corrected.