# Nikon 16-35mm f4 VR - An informal, backyard review



## tirediron (Dec 27, 2010)

A few weeks back I made a &#8216;brag-post&#8217; about some new gear I&#8217;d received. One of these items was a long-awaited ultra-wide zoom, Nikon&#8217;s new 16-35mm f4 VR. At that time, I said that I would post a review of the lens, so here it is. Please note: This is not a technical or scientific review; if you want detailed specifications, resolution of lines/mm, etc, there&#8217;s lots of that available. This is a review by a user, for other users in practical terms. Complaints or issues with the test procedures may be made by calling 1-800-WAHHHHHH

At first glance, an ultra-wide, f4 zoom with VR seems a bit of an odd-ball; I certainly thought so, but it was my lens of choice for several reasons. There are only three contenders in the Nikon line for this area. There is of course, the gold-standard 14-24 f2.8, and the 17-35 f2.8. The 14-24 was eliminated immediately for two reasons: (1) No front filter threads, and (2) high price. I don&#8217;t use the ultra-wide end often enough to really justify the cost. Next was the 17-35. This beast has been around a long time, and is an excellent lens, but it is old technology, and I might as well get that one extra millimetre.







I did a lot of research prior to ordering and all things seemed to indicate that it was an excellent lens with the following caveats: (1) Extreme barrel distortion at 16mm, and (2) slower than the other professional choices being an f4 lens. There is some minor pincushion distortion at 35mm, but I really don&#8217;t care as I&#8217;m into the 24-70 range by then. On that note, the 16-35 is surprisingly similar in size, weight and appearance to the 24-70, and it&#8217;s not &#8216;til you mount the lens hoods that it&#8217;s obvious which is which.






16-35 f4 (Left) 24-70 f2.8 (Right)






16-35 f4 (Left) 24-70 f2.8 (Right)

The build quality is everything you would except from Nikon&#8217;s &#8220;Gold-ring&#8221; line and has a nice solid feel to it, and the same smooth focusing and zoom as the 24-70. 

Pixel-peeper performance: I don&#8217;t have the facilities to do a proper lens-resolution test, but a page of newspaper can give a good idea.:





Newspaper from minimum focusing distance, f4, 100% crop, UL corner






Newspaper from minimum focusing distance, f8, 100% crop, UL corner






Newspaper from minimum focusing distance, f8, 100% crop, cent
Performance in the corners, at least at this level doesn&#8217;t look especially good, however this test is a pretty extreme circumstance. Camera to subject distance is only a few inches, and this really isn&#8217;t the way the lens is intended to be used. 

Barrel distortion: 





16mm, f4, approximately five feet camera to subject







18mm, f4, approximately five feet camera to subject







20mm, f4, approximately four feet camera to subject

Pretty ugly isn&#8217;t it? Of course one has to ask one&#8217;s self: How often is one likely to take photographs of vinyl siding at a distance of four feet? I know this is a first for me. Now, let&#8217;s compare this to a &#8216;real-world&#8217; example of a scene where this lens is likely to be used at 16mm:






Conclusion: When tested under the worst possible conditions, the lens is a so-so performer at best. When used the way it was intended, it&#8217;s an outstanding piece of glass. My feeling is that this lens is an excellent choice for anyone who wants a reasonably priced, ultra-wide zoom with very good (but not spectacular) performance in the real world. I&#8217;m pleased with this lens; naturally I&#8217;d like a little better performance in the corners and less barrel distortion wide open, but you can&#8217;t have everything, and the cost saving over the 14-24 f2.8 more than makes up for the slight performance loss.

~John


----------



## schumionbike (Dec 28, 2010)

Nice review, thanks!!!


----------



## tirediron (Dec 28, 2010)

Thanks, you're welcome.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 28, 2010)

Prety good experience review, but your Canadian spelling of "millimetre" will ensure that I call 1-800-WAHHHH to complain!!!


----------



## mar1u5 (Dec 28, 2010)

It's an OK piece of glass. I currently have it myself, and have previously owned the 14-24 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8 and sigma 12-24. My take on it:

It's sharper than the sigma, but both the 14-24 and 24-70 beats it. The VR is a nice touch, and 16-35 range does make it more of a walk-around lens than the 14-24 (not to mention the weight). It doesn't flare as easily as the 14-24 either, but it's by no means great. Optically the 14-24 is sharper in the center, and a LOT better in the corners (and with less distortion)


----------



## kundalini (Dec 28, 2010)

Thanks for the review, but I think I'll keep the 14-24mm.  The lack of filter threads is an annoyance at times, but not a deal breaker.


----------



## tirediron (Dec 29, 2010)

mar1u5 said:


> It's an OK piece of glass. I currently have it myself, and have previously owned the 14-24 f2.8, 24-70 f2.8 and sigma 12-24. My take on it:
> 
> It's sharper than the sigma, but both the 14-24 and 24-70 beats it. The VR is a nice touch, and 16-35 range does make it more of a walk-around lens than the 14-24 (not to mention the weight). It doesn't flare as easily as the 14-24 either, but it's by no means great. Optically the 14-24 is sharper in the center, and a LOT better in the corners (and with less distortion)





kundalini said:


> Thanks for the review, but I think I'll keep the 14-24mm.  The lack of filter threads is an annoyance at times, but not a deal breaker.



No doubt that the 14-24 is a superior piece of glass, and if it had front filter threads, I would have gone for it, but for me, that was a deal killer; given that I don't really use the ultra-wide end all that often (but I want to be able to), and given the price of this lens, I think it's pretty decent.


----------



## MrLogic (Dec 29, 2010)

tirediron said:


> No doubt that the 14-24 is a superior piece of glass, and if it had front filter threads, I would have gone for it, but for me, that was a deal killer [...]



You could always buy the Lee filter holder, even though it's not a perfect solution. You can use the 14-24 with filters.

But if money is an issue, then no, it's not an option.


The Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 looks like a good alternative (to me, anyway) :

Tokina 16-28: Nikon SLR Lens Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

No filter threads on that one, either, BTW.


----------



## tirediron (Dec 29, 2010)

The Lee holder would have been a way to go if I had my heart set on the 14-24, but it was a balancing act; I don't shoot that wide that often, and I'd rather have the money to put toward a 45mm PC lens this spring.  As for the Tokina, it looks good, but it's still more expensive than the Nikon.


----------



## MrLogic (Dec 29, 2010)

tirediron said:


> As for the Tokina, it looks good, but it's still more expensive than the Nikon.



No, the Tokina 16-28 f/2.8 is cheaper than the Nikon 16-35 f/4. 

It's $849 at Adorama. The Nikon is $1,109 (U.S.A. warranty) and $1,020 (gray market)


----------



## tirediron (Dec 29, 2010)

MrLogic said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > As for the Tokina, it looks good, but it's still more expensive than the Nikon.
> ...


 Nikon Federal Gov't Employee Discount! :thumbup:


----------



## Bram (Dec 30, 2010)

Why do you have both the 16-35 and the 24-70 ? Seems a little overkill with the range overlap? Or is that just me?


----------



## Patrice (Dec 30, 2010)

Bram said:


> Why do you have both the 16-35 and the 24-70 ? Seems a little overkill with the range overlap? Or is that just me?



I think he explained very well. The 14-24 is too expensive and the lack of filter is a deal breaker. The older Nikkor 17-35 2.8 is in his opinion 'old' technology. Given his decision parameters he made the right choice for him.

BTW your signature shows a complete duplication from 18 to 70 with no apparent increase in aperture (except at the fixed 35mm focal length) or IQ to justify the overlap, why is that?


----------



## tirediron (Dec 30, 2010)

Patrice said:


> Bram said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you have both the 16-35 and the 24-70 ? Seems a little overkill with the range overlap? Or is that just me?
> ...



Exactly and exactly - and really, 11mm overlap at one end is overkill??


----------



## Bram (Dec 31, 2010)

Yeah I got the 18-70 from a friend for free so why wouldn't I take it? Not saying it's overkill just sayign they're both very expensive, you would spend the extra cash just for the 11mm?


----------



## tirediron (Dec 31, 2010)

Bram said:


> Yeah I got the 18-70 from a friend for free so why wouldn't I take it? Not saying it's overkill just sayign they're both very expensive, you would spend the extra cash just for the 11mm?



Sorry, I'm not following your train of thought.  The overlap is 11mm, between the wide end of the 24-70, and the long end of the 16-35.  What I spent the money for was to get me out to 16mm.  I could have spent $600 more and got out to 14mm, with no overlap...


----------



## Bram (Dec 31, 2010)

Okay yeah see I wouldn't have done that. But that's just me personally I mean if you need them for business or whatever then it's all you man more power to ya. Just one of those things I wouldn't do.


----------

