Back in 2014 I bought this lens before I even got a fulll frame Nikon, using it on my D300s. I then bought my D810 in 2015 and have been using the two ever since. I don't buy and sell cameras like day traders trade stocks as I see many You Tube photographers doing.. I have heard people say the 20mm f1.8g is sharper, which I own, but in my experience the 16-35 is just as sharp with less distortion at 20mm.
hi Frederick! thank you very much for the in dept review. I am considering this lens for architecture and interior photography (my 17-35mm f2.8f has too much barrel distortion, specially after a bump a few years ago) but I really want to avoid the barrel distortion you are pointing out. Should I consider the Tamron 17-35mm FX instead? it shows less barrel distortion and straighter lines even before going trough lens correction in lightroom. What are your toughts?
Oh, this is very much personal preference territory. I can see (when studying lenses for the Z-mount) that modern lens constructions seems to rely more and more on digital correction of distortion and vignetting. Without being a lens engineer, my best guess is that they do this because it gives better performance in other dimensions such as CA - lens design is always a compromise and so I think the welcome the efficient digital correction and the fact that the camera internal post processing gives good options for correction. Back in the film days this was obviously a very different story. Now even in digital photography, you may still prefer a lens with mechanically well controlled distortion and vignetting because you either don't like the digital correction or don't trust it. And I think this is the key question for you to consider: do I like / mind the digital correction? And subject to your answer, the choice of lens follows naturally. Hope this helps!
Digital correction is no problem. Yes it was my feeling, boils down to personal preference. They can all be corrected digitally but this old of mine seems tricky to do so, having been dropped before. I am going for it, thank you so much for your help!@@frederikboving
Thanks for sharing... great review as I am a Nikon user & love reviews on any of their gear...I will put this lens on my wish list... great work... cheers 😀
Hi! Very very good review of this lens. Considering getting one for my landscape photography. Looking at this lens & 14-24mm. But my concern is the filter to protect the lens for the 14-24 mm. .. so bulky, & protruding lens. I think i will settle with the 16- 35 mm f/4 lens. Thanks for sharing. Merry Christmas & Happy New Year.
Thank you and a Happy New Year to you too! I would also factor in the weight of the lens. The 14-24 is almost a kilo! So you need to make sure you want to carry that much! On the other hand the 14-24 has 2 millimeters more at the wide end - does not sound like much, but it actually is a lot in relative terms! And I think most agree that the 14-24 is a more sharp lens. But I went with the 16-35 because it is more practical easy to use. I sense that you are headed in the same direction. All the best!
Thanks for a great review! I went with a Tamron 10-24mm F/3.5-4.5 Di II VC HLD lens for my Nikon D7500. I have been extremely pleased with it for my seaside photos in Anacortes. The upper end on an APC camera is good at around effective 36 mm focal length. Good buy new too. I am sure if you looks closely at the specs it has its problems but the resultant photos please me. All the best to you!
Thanks Again Frederick…. I have the Fuji aps-c copy and really haven’t used it that much lately. So this goes on the maybe later Nikon list. As far as mpb, just placed my first order with them yesterday. Prices were very good. We’ll see what the product looks like when it gets here next week,
@@frederikboving got the shipment today. Well packed and delivered on estimated date. Both Lens are in perfect shape and work well. And the price on these especially the 24-120 f4 G was more than fair. Thanks
@@tdalton854 Glad to hear that mpb consistently delivers to promise, now that I have several videos where I praise their capabilities! Thanks for sharing and getting back to me Tim! All the best!
I looked at this lens when looking at the 14-24. I was tempted due to the availability of filters for landscapes.. But was missing those few extra mm of focal that the 14 had. I wound up with the 14-24. Not to mention the bulbous lens element which is quite terrifying at times. I think they are both excellent options for wide angle requirements.
Thanks for sharing Jim! Yes, 2mm at the wide end is a lot! People may not give it a thought, but it dramatically changes your angle of view! The 14-24 is 1 kilo! And you have to get Lee filters or the like with a mount solution in order to be able to use filters, as you point out. I just saw that Bryan F. Peterson posted a picture from somewhere in Africa where he brought this lens, and I simply had to praise his endurance for carrying such a heavy lens such a long distance! But it was a great image!
@@frederikboving I used to shoot film and I’m looking at going digital. Fast lenses were better than slower lenses in film days because of the ISO was 64-100-200-400. Don McCullin went digital and the Canon rep recommended ISO 800 for daylight and 3200 for interiors. My question is that considering the amazing power of digital ISO, what is the important factor of lens selection. 🙏🏼??
@@johnbooth3073 Hi John, the boring answer is: it depends. It is right that digital has given more headroom when we are talking ISO and hence you could do with less fast lenses. But more wants more, so if you like me shoot raindrops lit up by streetlights during a rainy winters night, then you may want both a digital camera and a fast lens at the same time. And also fast lenses gives some creative options when talking depth of field - if you can nail the focus, then the shallow depth of field is great fun to work with! What I first and foremost look for in a lens is (1) is it the right focal length for me? (2) what is the weight/size - is it to heavy/big to carry? (3) what does the reviews say about CA - I shoot a lot into the sun and hence well suppressed CA is important to me. If these boxes are checked, then I of course look at contrast and sharpness and price before making a decision. But it is seldom the fastes lenses I go with to be honest - they are often expensive and heavy. Hope this helps.
Hi Frederik! This is right on time, as I am looking at getting this to use on the D700?! Nikon has it on sale right now, and it is about the same as the 18-35 variable aperture lens. This lens has not gotten the best of reviews and some say it actually performs below the 18-35? Three things I consider: Weather sealing, VR, and ability to go to 16 MM. I appreciate your reviews and videos. PLEASE be careful, as I heard Denmark in the news, with this newest variation of the Virus. This junk is going to be with all of us, for quite a long time, I am afraid. Stay safe and Healthy my friend! Best! 👍👍👍✌🏻🇩🇰🇺🇸📷
Thanks you George! We are careful here in little Denmark - vaccination of kids is picking up speed, and the booster jab is very well under way. Of course there are vaccine protests, but I think we will reach 90% of the in-scope population will have had the vaccine when we reach new year. Promise me you will also look at the 14-24 lens; it is probably a bit better optics, but ergonomics is less so if you ask me: it is a heavy lens + the curvy front element makes filters a bit cumbersome to work with. I think especially the weight made the lens a no-go for me, but your preferences probably differ from mine! All the best and take care!
Thank you Pedro! You are very right - the gold ring does not necessarily indicate weather sealing! My bad! But I think the jury is a bit out when it comes to the meaning of a golden ring. Some say pro level glass, some say ED coating, etc. And others point to how inconsistently Nikon has assigned gold rings to their lenses! All the best!
@@frederikboving yes there's some inconsistencies when attributing the gold rings. The 28mm F1.8G has one and it doesn't even have the extra dispersion glass...
I believe the gold ring is similar to the S with the Z lenses and Canon's L lenses. Pro and consumer grade. Also back in the old days, we had Nikkor and entry-level Nikon lenses. For instance, while we generally regard the 28-300 as a lens for the consumers, but Canon has a 28-300 f/3.5-5.6 L IS. We can easily see the difference between it's build & size vs. the Nikon 28-300 f/3.5-5.6 G ED VR (no gold ring).
Thanks for sharing J R. I was shooting with the 16-35 the other day, and I could CERTAINLY have used some extra reach that day. 16-80 albeit variable aperture sure sounds nice!
I’m finding myself going with my 16-35 in f4 with VR instead of my 14-24 in f2.8 without VR. Physical characteristics aside- which are significant - the VR makes this a very practical lens. Since all my photos get lens corrected in Lightroom there’s nothing to compromise in the images.
Hi Gary, glad you share my positive bias towards the VR! I really think it makes this lens so much more easy to use and I need to carry a tripod a lot less than I used to - really a big plus with regards to convenience!
I’ll be waiting to see what Nikon does with their next generation of Z6/7 and prospects for using the in-camera stabilization with adapter for the large number of DSLR lenses I have. So far not impressive, especially for screw drives. Although there are some positive aspects for AI and AI-S versions. More topics for you to consider in the future.
@@garymc8956 Right - I am first and foremost waiting to see if Nikon comes out with a mkII of the FTZ adapter with a built in AF motor - that would be so nice!
For less than half the price you could also get the AF-S NIKKOR 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED Image quality is on par but you loose 2mm at the wide end and no VR which is IMHO unimportant for wide lenses primarily for landscape.
Hi Michael, thanks for sharing! Yes, life is full of temptations and choices. I love the VR - it enables me to leave the tripod at home or go on less-well-planned-shoots (my shoots are often like that!).
@@frederikboving Hi Frederik, same analysis for me. I looked at both options but ended up with the 16-35. Inside churches and monuments when using a tripod is not allowed or unconvenient, adding VR is a must. Best way I found in those conditions is stopping to f/5,6 and sliding a bit to 19/20 mm where the corners are much better.
I just got this lens today and out of the box it made that grinding noice when I changed focal length. Everything looked brand new and my camera shop promised me it was not an open box or used. Anyway exchanged it and all is good.
Bought a copy off ebay, unfortunately the VR wasn't working. Used it for a while then sold it. Kinda regret doing that. Now looking for another copy, or getting the tamron 15-30 sp instead. I think the tamron is an overall better lens for the money, but a little too heavy.
Sorry to hear about the VR not working! I buy from mpb.com as you know, for that reason. A pro, where I can always return if goods are not as declared. Yep, Tamron may be better, but yours truly is a Nikonian!
I have both, (GAS strikes again) and they are both excellent choices. Honestly I'd say on balance, unless you are extremely creative with 2.8 wide angles, the extra weight and size of the Tamron, plus the fact that it doesn't natively take filters makes it hard to put in your backpack when doing everyday landscape photography, and lets face it with these kind of wide angle zooms, you're going to be stopping down 99% of the time. Don't get me wrong, the Tamron 15-30 G2 is ridiculously sharp, but the nikon is much easier to walk about with, and also for me at least has an incredible warm colour rendition that suits landscape work and just looks fantastic (my own opinion). I find the 15-30 sits in it's case on the shelf far more than I would have hoped !
@@hazybrain7 thanks for the detailed comment. And while I agree that the 16-35 is easier to haul around (even though I felt it was a bit too long) and it's image quality was really good for me, I just think you're getting a lot more lens for less money with the tammy (the G1)
@@hazybrain7 Thanks for sharing Hazybrain! Yes, you learn to love those lenses that you by default bring along when going out for a shoot! I have learned that convenience and ergonomics is far more important that what I thought when I stared out as a photographer. Your post confirms that I am not alone, to THANK YOU!
Frederick I think the question (regarding corner sharpness) has never happened, not only for you, but ever for anyone, from a client. Maybe, just maybe, a photographer has asked that of him/herself, but in real life, it's not an issue. That's why I just snort and turn away, when those pushing the new lenses make such a big deal regarding corner sharpness wide open over older lenses. When making images with immediate emotional impact without being propaganda, corner sharpness doesn't cross the mind.I shoot a slightly lesser 17-35 f4 Tokina (no VR) and have had to contend with 82mm filters. I also think it's a little funny, once you use the non-autofocus lenses for a little while, just how quickly you don't miss autofocus when it's n[t there.
I'm using the same 16-35 vr, a 50 f1.4, and the (Legendary) 70-200 2.8 VR tank lens 😇 .... A 24-70mm f2.8 would be more convenient (popular?) Idk but there is a HUGE useable difference between 16 and 24. I just feel 24 isn't wide enough tbh 😕 this Is an unpopular opinion but I think that focal range (24-70mm) is just kinda lazy. Everyone is shooting it. I like to challenge myself. Fwiw... I walked around for almost 2 yrs shooting nothing but the 50mm f 1.4/D600, I didn't have any money for lenses. If I needed a wider or longer shot I'd use my IPhone... I adjusted my photography to reflect so. Lots of walking 🚶♂️ 👌 I LOVE that 16-35mm though. That was my 2nd FX lens. That pretty much lived on my D600. Thanks for the video 😬
@@frederikboving I just do casual photography, I made it work though! Thousands of pictures for sure. Money was really tight at the time but I didn't let that stop me from having fun shooting. If I could go back in time and only have one lens I think a 35mm would have been more useful in most of my cases. But anywho,that's the past. I've been busy with my new to me D3s the last month. I love that camera. With "only" the 12mp it's a perfect camera for social media posts. Smaller file sizes are definitely a plus and easier to work with/store. I pretty much have the 70-200mm on that body exclusively. My 16-35mm lives on my D600. If I need to crop a photo it's not as big of a penalty. I'm so use to carrying only one lens at this point, so I choose carefully before I leave the house. It's way more rewarding that way ( minus any vacations of course I'll bring 2 lenses 😎) The 50mm is in the display case for now 😉
@@frederikboving I picked up a 24-70 f/2.8g ED for 550$ usd. In perfect condition. It's a great lens. I don't think I needed it though 😂 but the price was just right. I'm gonna use it and not complain. It's literally the same size as this 16-35mm. I love the wide angle of the lens in the video. I get so creative with it. The 24-70 is like playing the game on easy mode 😐I have to get use to it🤙
Borrowed this from my local photo pusher that let me borrow that lens for 2 months!its a must for any Nikon FX camera, along with the 50mm f1.4 and a 70-200mm f2.8 Sigma/Tamron/Nikon
The Nikon 28-70 2.8 is a much better fit with the 70-200 2.8 After all, going with the 16-35 and 70-200 doesn’t cover the 35-70 focal length so I don’t see the point of picking the much slower 16-35 over the 28-70. Honestly if I wasn’t going to go with the 28-70 due to cost, I’d just grab a 50mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8 instead but I prefer prime lenses so take that with a grain of salt.
![[DRAGON BALL LEGENDS REVEALS ＆ STUFF] LEGENDS FESTIVAL 2024 Special Edition Part 1](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mV5bGIswTtQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Back in 2014 I bought this lens before I even got a fulll frame Nikon, using it on my D300s. I then bought my D810 in 2015 and have been using the two ever since. I don't buy and sell cameras like day traders trade stocks as I see many You Tube photographers doing.. I have heard people say the 20mm f1.8g is sharper, which I own, but in my experience the 16-35 is just as sharp with less distortion at 20mm.
Thank you for sharing. Must admit that I have fallen in love with the 35mm prime for the z mount!
Thank you very much Fred. Brilliant analysis as always
Many thanks! 🙏🏻
hi Frederick!
thank you very much for the in dept review. I am considering this lens for architecture and interior photography (my 17-35mm f2.8f has too much barrel distortion, specially after a bump a few years ago) but I really want to avoid the barrel distortion you are pointing out.
Should I consider the Tamron 17-35mm FX instead? it shows less barrel distortion and straighter lines even before going trough lens correction in lightroom. What are your toughts?
Oh, this is very much personal preference territory. I can see (when studying lenses for the Z-mount) that modern lens constructions seems to rely more and more on digital correction of distortion and vignetting. Without being a lens engineer, my best guess is that they do this because it gives better performance in other dimensions such as CA - lens design is always a compromise and so I think the welcome the efficient digital correction and the fact that the camera internal post processing gives good options for correction. Back in the film days this was obviously a very different story. Now even in digital photography, you may still prefer a lens with mechanically well controlled distortion and vignetting because you either don't like the digital correction or don't trust it. And I think this is the key question for you to consider: do I like / mind the digital correction? And subject to your answer, the choice of lens follows naturally. Hope this helps!
Digital correction is no problem.
Yes it was my feeling, boils down to personal preference. They can all be corrected digitally but this old of mine seems tricky to do so, having been dropped before.
I am going for it, thank you so much for your help!@@frederikboving
Thanks for posting this!
🙏🏻
Thanks for sharing... great review as I am a Nikon user & love reviews on any of their gear...I will put this lens on my wish list... great work... cheers 😀
Thank you Robert - much appreciated! All the best!
Thank you so much for this review.
🙏🏻
My first FX lens. I love it to bits.
👌
Hi! Very very good review of this lens. Considering getting one for my landscape photography. Looking at this lens & 14-24mm. But my concern is the filter to protect the lens for the 14-24 mm. .. so bulky, & protruding lens. I think i will settle with the 16- 35 mm f/4 lens. Thanks for sharing. Merry Christmas & Happy New Year.
Thank you and a Happy New Year to you too! I would also factor in the weight of the lens. The 14-24 is almost a kilo! So you need to make sure you want to carry that much! On the other hand the 14-24 has 2 millimeters more at the wide end - does not sound like much, but it actually is a lot in relative terms! And I think most agree that the 14-24 is a more sharp lens. But I went with the 16-35 because it is more practical easy to use. I sense that you are headed in the same direction. All the best!
Thanks for a great review! I went with a Tamron 10-24mm F/3.5-4.5 Di II VC HLD lens for my Nikon D7500. I have been extremely pleased with it for my seaside photos in Anacortes. The upper end on an APC camera is good at around effective 36 mm focal length. Good buy new too. I am sure if you looks closely at the specs it has its problems but the resultant photos please me. All the best to you!
Thank you Robert! The "resultant photos" is the thing that counts if you ask me! Glad you found a lens you really like! All the best!
Thanks Again Frederick…. I have the Fuji aps-c copy and really haven’t used it that much lately. So this goes on the maybe later Nikon list. As far as mpb, just placed my first order with them yesterday. Prices were very good. We’ll see what the product looks like when it gets here next week,
Thank you Tim! I really hope mpb.com delivers, now that I have spoken so favorably about them in several videos!
@@frederikboving got the shipment today. Well packed and delivered on estimated date. Both Lens are in perfect shape and work well. And the price on these especially the 24-120 f4 G was more than fair. Thanks
@@tdalton854 Glad to hear that mpb consistently delivers to promise, now that I have several videos where I praise their capabilities! Thanks for sharing and getting back to me Tim! All the best!
I looked at this lens when looking at the 14-24. I was tempted due to the availability of filters for landscapes.. But was missing those few extra mm of focal that the 14 had. I wound up with the 14-24. Not to mention the bulbous lens element which is quite terrifying at times. I think they are both excellent options for wide angle requirements.
Thanks for sharing Jim! Yes, 2mm at the wide end is a lot! People may not give it a thought, but it dramatically changes your angle of view! The 14-24 is 1 kilo! And you have to get Lee filters or the like with a mount solution in order to be able to use filters, as you point out. I just saw that Bryan F. Peterson posted a picture from somewhere in Africa where he brought this lens, and I simply had to praise his endurance for carrying such a heavy lens such a long distance! But it was a great image!
I also chose the1424 just for the f2.8 because one stop is big for me. And it is SHARP!!! Yes, the 1424 needs some more care.
@@frederikboving I used to shoot film and I’m looking at going digital. Fast lenses were better than slower lenses in film days because of the ISO was 64-100-200-400. Don McCullin went digital and the Canon rep recommended ISO 800 for daylight and 3200 for interiors. My question is that considering the amazing power of digital ISO, what is the important factor of lens selection. 🙏🏼??
@@johnbooth3073 Hi John, the boring answer is: it depends. It is right that digital has given more headroom when we are talking ISO and hence you could do with less fast lenses. But more wants more, so if you like me shoot raindrops lit up by streetlights during a rainy winters night, then you may want both a digital camera and a fast lens at the same time. And also fast lenses gives some creative options when talking depth of field - if you can nail the focus, then the shallow depth of field is great fun to work with! What I first and foremost look for in a lens is (1) is it the right focal length for me? (2) what is the weight/size - is it to heavy/big to carry? (3) what does the reviews say about CA - I shoot a lot into the sun and hence well suppressed CA is important to me. If these boxes are checked, then I of course look at contrast and sharpness and price before making a decision. But it is seldom the fastes lenses I go with to be honest - they are often expensive and heavy. Hope this helps.
You convince me to get this lens. Excellent content
Hope you'll like it as much as me 👍
i know i will the lens is awesome i will try to get great landscape to try it on@@frederikboving
I got the lens and will try to take some photos tomorrow
Hi Frederik! This is right on time, as I am looking at getting this to use on the D700?! Nikon has it on sale right now, and it is about the same as the 18-35 variable aperture lens. This lens has not gotten the best of reviews and some say it actually performs below the 18-35?
Three things I consider: Weather sealing, VR, and ability to go to 16 MM.
I appreciate your reviews and videos. PLEASE be careful, as I heard Denmark in the news, with this newest variation of the Virus. This junk is going to be with all of us, for quite a long time, I am afraid. Stay safe and Healthy my friend! Best! 👍👍👍✌🏻🇩🇰🇺🇸📷
Thanks you George! We are careful here in little Denmark - vaccination of kids is picking up speed, and the booster jab is very well under way. Of course there are vaccine protests, but I think we will reach 90% of the in-scope population will have had the vaccine when we reach new year.
Promise me you will also look at the 14-24 lens; it is probably a bit better optics, but ergonomics is less so if you ask me: it is a heavy lens + the curvy front element makes filters a bit cumbersome to work with. I think especially the weight made the lens a no-go for me, but your preferences probably differ from mine! All the best and take care!
Very nice images and a great camera and lens.
Thank you Dezmond!
Hello
I bought this lens second hand and it has fungus . Can you recomand a Methode to clean it . Thank you.
Sorry, that is not something I have ever tried to do. Hope you get rid of the fungus somehow.
@@frederikboving thanks i hope with ultraviolet light and after that to clean the lens.
Thanks! It is on my list.
Thank you Daniel - good hunt! All the best!
The golden ring lenses are the ones Nikon deem to be pro lenses. Great review as always.
Thank you Pedro! You are very right - the gold ring does not necessarily indicate weather sealing! My bad! But I think the jury is a bit out when it comes to the meaning of a golden ring. Some say pro level glass, some say ED coating, etc. And others point to how inconsistently Nikon has assigned gold rings to their lenses! All the best!
@@frederikboving yes there's some inconsistencies when attributing the gold rings. The 28mm F1.8G has one and it doesn't even have the extra dispersion glass...
I believe the gold ring is similar to the S with the Z lenses and Canon's L lenses. Pro and consumer grade. Also back in the old days, we had Nikkor and entry-level Nikon lenses.
For instance, while we generally regard the 28-300 as a lens for the consumers, but Canon has a 28-300 f/3.5-5.6 L IS. We can easily see the difference between it's build & size vs. the Nikon 28-300 f/3.5-5.6 G ED VR (no gold ring).
@@bfs5113 So gold = pro?
@@frederikboving Yes, but not official. Hence, Nikon pro lenses are Nikkor (manual), Gold ring (AF-S) and S (Z mount) for the SLR, DSLR and MILC.
Sorry but the gold rim does not mean the lens with this are weather sealed
Agreed! 👍
Never used the 16-35 but I own the 16-80 f2.8-4E and it is a forgotten treasure.
Thanks for sharing J R. I was shooting with the 16-35 the other day, and I could CERTAINLY have used some extra reach that day. 16-80 albeit variable aperture sure sounds nice!
@@frederikboving Better to have f2.8 to F4 than F4 all the way. No big deal though. Yes, the extra reach is always welcoming.
This lens is the most popular lens for underwater photographers.
Thank you 🙏🏻 for sharing
just bought me one today second hand
👍
I’m finding myself going with my 16-35 in f4 with VR instead of my 14-24 in f2.8 without VR. Physical characteristics aside- which are significant - the VR makes this a very practical lens. Since all my photos get lens corrected in Lightroom there’s nothing to compromise in the images.
Hi Gary, glad you share my positive bias towards the VR! I really think it makes this lens so much more easy to use and I need to carry a tripod a lot less than I used to - really a big plus with regards to convenience!
I’ll be waiting to see what Nikon does with their next generation of Z6/7 and prospects for using the in-camera stabilization with adapter for the large number of DSLR lenses I have. So far not impressive, especially for screw drives. Although there are some positive aspects for AI and AI-S versions. More topics for you to consider in the future.
@@garymc8956 Right - I am first and foremost waiting to see if Nikon comes out with a mkII of the FTZ adapter with a built in AF motor - that would be so nice!
Can you send me a filter link for this lens? I need to buy one
Sorry, cannot guess what kind of filter you would need. 🤔
@@frederikboving the lens filter in this video uv
@@Admeralsarms sorry- I don't use UV filters and don't recommend using them.
For less than half the price you could also get the AF-S NIKKOR 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED
Image quality is on par but you loose 2mm at the wide end and no VR which is IMHO unimportant for wide lenses primarily for landscape.
Hi Michael, thanks for sharing! Yes, life is full of temptations and choices. I love the VR - it enables me to leave the tripod at home or go on less-well-planned-shoots (my shoots are often like that!).
Yeah, I went with that lens instead. Great image quality and it's much cheaper and lighter than the 16-35.
@@frederikboving Hi Frederik, same analysis for me. I looked at both options but ended up with the 16-35. Inside churches and monuments when using a tripod is not allowed or unconvenient, adding VR is a must. Best way I found in those conditions is stopping to f/5,6 and sliding a bit to 19/20 mm where the corners are much better.
I just got this lens today and out of the box it made that grinding noice when I changed focal length. Everything looked brand new and my camera shop promised me it was not an open box or used. Anyway exchanged it and all is good.
Good that you got a new copy. There should be no grinding noises from new lenses!!
Bought a copy off ebay, unfortunately the VR wasn't working. Used it for a while then sold it. Kinda regret doing that. Now looking for another copy, or getting the tamron 15-30 sp instead. I think the tamron is an overall better lens for the money, but a little too heavy.
Sorry to hear about the VR not working! I buy from mpb.com as you know, for that reason. A pro, where I can always return if goods are not as declared. Yep, Tamron may be better, but yours truly is a Nikonian!
I have both, (GAS strikes again) and they are both excellent choices. Honestly I'd say on balance, unless you are extremely creative with 2.8 wide angles, the extra weight and size of the Tamron, plus the fact that it doesn't natively take filters makes it hard to put in your backpack when doing everyday landscape photography, and lets face it with these kind of wide angle zooms, you're going to be stopping down 99% of the time. Don't get me wrong, the Tamron 15-30 G2 is ridiculously sharp, but the nikon is much easier to walk about with, and also for me at least has an incredible warm colour rendition that suits landscape work and just looks fantastic (my own opinion). I find the 15-30 sits in it's case on the shelf far more than I would have hoped !
@@hazybrain7 thanks for the detailed comment. And while I agree that the 16-35 is easier to haul around (even though I felt it was a bit too long) and it's image quality was really good for me, I just think you're getting a lot more lens for less money with the tammy (the G1)
@@hazybrain7 Thanks for sharing Hazybrain! Yes, you learn to love those lenses that you by default bring along when going out for a shoot! I have learned that convenience and ergonomics is far more important that what I thought when I stared out as a photographer. Your post confirms that I am not alone, to THANK YOU!
Frederick I think the question (regarding corner sharpness) has never happened, not only for you, but ever for anyone, from a client. Maybe, just maybe, a photographer has asked that of him/herself, but in real life, it's not an issue. That's why I just snort and turn away, when those pushing the new lenses make such a big deal regarding corner sharpness wide open over older lenses. When making images with immediate emotional impact without being propaganda, corner sharpness doesn't cross the mind.I shoot a slightly lesser 17-35 f4 Tokina (no VR) and have had to contend with 82mm filters. I also think it's a little funny, once you use the non-autofocus lenses for a little while, just how quickly you don't miss autofocus when it's n[t there.
Agreed. Thank you for sharing James! All the best!
I'm using the same 16-35 vr, a 50 f1.4, and the (Legendary) 70-200 2.8 VR tank lens 😇 .... A 24-70mm f2.8 would be more convenient (popular?) Idk but there is a HUGE useable difference between 16 and 24. I just feel 24 isn't wide enough tbh 😕 this Is an unpopular opinion but I think that focal range (24-70mm) is just kinda lazy. Everyone is shooting it. I like to challenge myself.
Fwiw... I walked around for almost 2 yrs shooting nothing but the 50mm f 1.4/D600, I didn't have any money for lenses. If I needed a wider or longer shot I'd use my IPhone... I adjusted my photography to reflect so. Lots of walking 🚶♂️ 👌 I LOVE that 16-35mm though. That was my 2nd FX lens. That pretty much lived on my D600.
Thanks for the video 😬
Thanks for sharing Nik! Wow! Shooting with a 50mm for 2 years! You must really know the ins-and-out of that lens!
@@frederikboving I just do casual photography, I made it work though! Thousands of pictures for sure. Money was really tight at the time but I didn't let that stop me from having fun shooting. If I could go back in time and only have one lens I think a 35mm would have been more useful in most of my cases. But anywho,that's the past.
I've been busy with my new to me D3s the last month. I love that camera. With "only" the 12mp it's a perfect camera for social media posts. Smaller file sizes are definitely a plus and easier to work with/store. I pretty much have the 70-200mm on that body exclusively. My 16-35mm lives on my D600. If I need to crop a photo it's not as big of a penalty.
I'm so use to carrying only one lens at this point, so I choose carefully before I leave the house. It's way more rewarding that way ( minus any vacations of course I'll bring 2 lenses 😎)
The 50mm is in the display case for now 😉
@@bailey.nt86 Thanks for sharing Nik - I sense that you love your D3S as much as I love my D4 - wonderful cameras! All the best!
@@frederikboving I picked up a 24-70 f/2.8g ED for 550$ usd. In perfect condition. It's a great lens. I don't think I needed it though 😂 but the price was just right. I'm gonna use it and not complain. It's literally the same size as this 16-35mm. I love the wide angle of the lens in the video. I get so creative with it. The 24-70 is like playing the game on easy mode 😐I have to get use to it🤙
@@bailey.nt86 Thanks for sharing! All the best with your 24-70!
Borrowed this from my local photo pusher that let me borrow that lens for 2 months!its a must for any Nikon FX camera, along with the 50mm f1.4 and a 70-200mm f2.8 Sigma/Tamron/Nikon
The Nikon 28-70 2.8 is a much better fit with the 70-200 2.8
After all, going with the 16-35 and 70-200 doesn’t cover the 35-70 focal length so I don’t see the point of picking the much slower 16-35 over the 28-70.
Honestly if I wasn’t going to go with the 28-70 due to cost, I’d just grab a 50mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8 instead but I prefer prime lenses so take that with a grain of salt.
Thanks for sharing! Yes, I also have the 50mm prime and the 70-200 on top of the cameras I grab regularly on the way out the door...