Reviews and Problems with Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR AF-S
Showing 1-5 of 5
Horrible Lens, overpriced like all Nikkor Lenses
23 February 2012
Summary: I got this lens for Rig shots and it was horrible. With VR turned off or on, all the shots experience an insane amount of distortion, even at 35mm at 20ft out. I did not experience this with other UWA Nikkor lenses, just this one. Lens is also insanely heavy, way too heavy to mount to a D700 and Rig.
Summary: I have owned many Nikon pro lenses, including the 14-24 and 17-35. I really dislike the 17-35 because it requires sharpening every image to get past the haze that this optic seems to impart. The 14-24 was hands down the best Nikon lens I've ever used. Alas, medical bills forced a sale. I saved up enough to get the 16-35 thinking it would be a good replacement. The images from this lens were far worse than those from the 17-35.
Summary: I returned this lens because it was unacceptably soft off center axis on my D300. At 16mm even when stopped down to f5.6 off center image quality was soft. I also compared it to my excellent Nixon 24-70mm f2.8 at both 24mm and 35mm. The 24-70 was far superior off center axis at both 24mm and 35mm to the 16-35mm both at f4 and even when the 16-35mm was stopped down to f5.6. There was something very wrong with this lens either in design or manufacture.
Summary: After reading all the glowing reviews (especially from K. Rockwell) I decided to buy this lens to replace my 14-24. WHAT A MISTAKE! I wanted something lighter to schlup around. I shoot a lot of architecture and wanted to lighten my load of D700 + 14-24 lens + tripod. Yes, it was lighter but not nearly the glass of the 14-24mm. Sad, cause I prematurely sold my 14-24 and now have to buy another one. I'm returning the 16-35.