Reviews and Problems with Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR AF-S
Showing 1-10 of 305
My 1st ultra wide lens
3 weeks ago
Excerpt: This is my 1st ultra wide lens, and it has opened up so many new shot ideas that cannot be done with a normal or wide angle...I find myself using the 16mm more than anything as I explore how I can use the lens.
Pros: Easily Interchangeable, Fast / accurate auto-focus
Summary: I am loving this lens... it's fast, sharp, and light weight I do prefer the heavier older 17-35 for its durability but that preference doesn't take anything away from how awesome this lens is.
Excerpt: This is a great lens in many respects, but I can't bring myself to give it 5 stars. As background on myself, I have owned in the past the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8, Nikon 24mm f/1.4G, as well as the Sony Zeiss 16-35mm f/2.8 for Sony A-mount cameras, and I've had the opportunity to use or try a number of other ultra-wide lenses as well.<br /><br />I'll go into drawbacks first. First off is the oft-mentioned strong distortion at 16mm. This is true.
Pros: Fast / accurate auto-focus, Flexible, High contrast, Sharp, VR
Summary: I go hiking virtually every weekend here in Costa Rica, always with a camera and I have purchased this lens to replace an old 20 mm f/2.8 that was giving me some trouble due to lubricant in the diaphragm. Of course the 16-35 is much bigger and heavy than the 20, then, it is not the best choice for a hard and fast ride when there is not enough time to stop to take pictures.
Excerpt: Althouge it is not F2.8, the build is solid and the image is shaper than the old 17~35mm F2.8. VR is also usefull in low light conditions. Operation is sliky smooth. It is a good landscape lens over all. My only concern is the design of the rear lens element -- it is easy to collect dust and moisture.
Pros: Consistent Output, Durable, Fast / accurate auto-focus, Strong Construction
Excerpt: I have owned the 14-24 and 24-70 f/2.8 for years now. I bought the 16-35mm speculating that it might replace one or the other for me: the 14-24 for the obvious applications, replacing 24-70 as the lens on my 2nd body, paired with the 70-200mm f/2.8.<br /><br />What everyone else has written is true: the distortion on the short end is really severe, the outer edges are soft compared to the other zooms, the center is sharp, the VR is useful, the handling is nice, the...
Excerpt: This lens meets a variety of needs. The build quality is solid; the image quality is crisp. It's heavy, but certainly not the bulkiest in its class. It's not cheap, but neither is it a $2,000+ bank-breaker. I really like using wides in urban settings and the versatility of this lens allows it to stay on the camera quite often.
Excerpt: Needed a wide angle lens for a upcoming wedding. This fit the book. I was looking for something that still had a little range in the zoom, but didn't want to fork out for the 12-14 even though I heard how good of a lens that one is. This one seems to take super sharp pictures, but like all other reviews it does have a lot of barrel distortion when shot at its widest point. This can be corrected in PS.
Pros: Easily Interchangeable, Fast / accurate auto-focus, Lightweight, Nice Bokeh