Make sure this fitsby entering your model number. Ideal for wide-angle and "normal" shots Maximum aperture: f/4 ; Offers two focus modes, M/A (autofocus with manual override) and M (manual) Lens construction: 17 elements in 12 groups Image stabilization, vibration reduction (VR II) up to 4 stops Nikon F mount for FX and DX DSLRs AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR lens 24-52.5mm effective focal length with APS-C sensor cameras
Im a very technical person and could go into the technical details of this lens and its elements but instead Im going to keep it simple and just say what matters: 1) Great lens for shooting landscapes on a full frame camera. Great field of view. 2) Very very good at preventing sun flares on wide shots when the sun is off center. The lens coatings are excellent. 3) The lens is soft at the edges when shooting 16mm and your subject is close, like within 5-10 feet such as shooting low to the ground, but is acceptable. Anything that is 20+ feet away from the lens is sharp even at the edges. I think the curvature of the lens at close range causes this. Overall a great lens when you want to be able to carry screw on filters and still get a pretty wide FOV.
Kevin T. Nguyen-tu
4
One simple answer. Shouldve bought it sooner. Ive spend many months debating should I get this vs 12-24 F2.8 or the older 17-35 F2.8. Ive spend those months comparing the Nikon brand, Tokina brand, Sigma (if any), and Tamron (if any). Having already own 24-70mm F2.8 and 70-200mm F2.8 both Nikon lenses, I really enjoy the F2.8! The ability going low light and couple that with my D800 ability to go ISO 3200 clean is unbelievable. After reading hundreds of review, thousands of forum comments and feedbacks, I could not put myself down to spend 2k on a wide lens. I took a dive and purchase this Nikon 16-35mm F4 lens. I am actually very happy I did and knock myself for not doing it sooner. So many missed opportunities I couldve been using wide angle on if I had just purchased it sooner. Yes, I will miss the great 2.8, but VR on this lens will help. It is nicely sharp. Extremely silence auto-focus. The lens hood is smaller than I expected. I will be able to use the same 77mm filters I have on my other lenses. I am pleased.
Jeremiah Gilbert
4
For the past three years I have been shooting with a Nikon D7000 fitted primarily with a Sigma 10-20mm lens (equivalent to 15-30mm on the D7000). I recently upgraded to a full-frame D600 and purchased this lens as a replacement for the Sigma, which doesnt quite work on a full-frame camera. Now that Ive spent some time with this lens, I thought Id share my thoughts ... Pros: (1) Excellent range, from wide angle (16mm) to a good street photography length (35mm). (2) Fixed aperture of f/4--not crucial but a nice feature. (3) Pro quality and excellent optics. (4) Minimal vignetting, unless using a polarizer. Cons: (1) This lens is heavy, especially when fitted on a full-frame body. If you regularly use a tripod, this wont be an issue. (2) This is an expensive lens--nearly three times the price of my previous Sigma. Wait for occasional rebates, which can save you around 20%. (3) Noticeable distortion at 16mm. While it can be fixed in Photoshop, this also crop the image slightly. Dont get me wrong, this is an excellent lens and you will experience great results with some practice. If you have a full-frame Nikon and want a wide-angle lens, this is the one to get.
RR
4
After buying this, I had buyers remorse for not getting a 2.8. Nonetheless, it is far smaller and lighter than a 2.8. I have since bought the 2.8 for frequent use and kept the 4.0 for travel and outside daylight shots.
CliftonClowers
4
Let me just say that I have compared this to the 14-24G lens having obtained the 16-35G first. I live in South America and set up a tripod with my D800E mounted to test both lenses. I took some shots of some Andean ridges and buildings from my 7th floor apartment balcony, and I can tell you that per the copies that I have, the 16-35 will match or beat the 14-24 in center sharpness from F5.6 upward until F11. Where the 14-24 shines is in extreme corner sharpness and I doubt any other lens can match its sharpness in the extremes of the FX frame. The reason I mention the above is because after much field use, the 16-35 is the best and most practical wide angle in terms of weight, option for filter use and ruggedness. When you use the 16-35, stay away from anything less than 18mm due to rampant distortion, but apart from that, just shoot as wide as possible with the 16-35 and then crop out the border distortion in post production and youll have shot comparable to or even exceeding the shapness and contrast offered by the 14-24. Frankly, I was going to sell my 16-35 once I received the 14-24, but despite the rice and beans Ill have to eat for the next few months, Ill keep the 16-35 for the majority of my wide angle opportunities--my "walking around" lens so to speak. Ill keep the 14-24 for those special situation landscape and special event shots where I have time to use a tripod, cable release, MirrorUp and all other user precautions to maximize the full capability of the 14-24. The 16-35 is a tremendous wide angle at a great price and when used with a little forethought and the post production work that you would do anyway with RAW files, you will not be able to discern any difference between it an the renouned 14-24. I highly recommend the Nikkor 16-35mm G lens. Note: After I posted the above review, it occurred to me that I should have used the word "central" instead of "center" sharpness. I may have implied that only the very center of the frame was sharp. Actually, the ENTIRE frame is very sharp and comparable to the 14-24, expect for the borders and corners. This distinction is important because why would anyone favor buying this lens if only the "center" was sharp!
Please sign in so that we can notify you about a reply
