Nikon 16-35mm zoom. How does it stand up to the competition?

[hassiman]

I really love the Nikon 14-24 but it's just so damn heavy and hard to use with filters.

I was considering the Nikon 16-35mm as it is super wide... but is it sharp enough.... I have heard some love it.. some do not.

Any current users care to share their experience?  I am betwixt and between here...  HELP!

[dwswager]

I really love the Nikon 14-24 but it's just so damn heavy and hard to use with filters.

I was considering the Nikon 16-35mm as it is super wide... but is it sharp enough.... I have heard some love it.. some do not.

Any current users care to share their experience?  I am betwixt and between here...  HELP!

Not as sharp as the 14-24mm, but a great lens.  Distortion at 16mm is pretty bad, but clears up quickly to normal levels.  Bottom Line is that if you shot the same image with the 14-24mm, 16-35mm f/4 VR and the 17-35mm f/3.5-4.5 you would not be able to tell the difference except in some exceptional situations.

[armand]

For me the best choice was the newer 18-35. Doesn't have the coatings of the 16-35 but it might be even sharper corner to corner and it's lighter and smaller. It's cheaper also although when I chose it the 16-35 was on sale and the difference was small. Probably not as weather sealed but good enough for some pros (probably similar weather sealing to 70-200 F4).
Aperture is a wash (but it is variable) and doesn't have VR.
Unless you need the 16 mm vs the 18 mm and VR the optical qualities are similar for a smaller lighter lens.

PS. I don't use that wide that often though

[Chairman Bill]

I used the older version of the 18-35 with my D700, and had pretty good results (IMHO) with it. Less good on the D800 - the flaws became obvious. I'm now shooting with a 17-35 2.8, and very happy with the results from that. It's much heavier & bulkier though.

[philaitman]

I have the 14-24 F2.8 and the 16-35 F4 tbh the 14-24 is used 90% of the time exclusively for Night skies now (an expensive toy for that but it is a great night sky lens)

For landscape work, I'm using the whole F4 range 16-35, 24-120, 70-200 and 300 AFS on a D800E and D810. They all have their minor faults, distortion, not 100% perfect corner sharpness, but once you get to know them you can work around any minor shortcomings. I actually like the 16-35 a lot it's great with filters sharp enough and most of all carryable.

I did get it with a cashback rebate but I would have probably been happy at full price too

[langier]

I love my 14-24mm but not for travel by air. Too big, too heavy, too conspicuous.

For several years I've been using my D800 and 17-35mm 2.8. No VR and 20th century optic sort-of designed for the D1, but still a pretty good lens for my needs. It's a little shorter than the 16-35mm and almost as wide, but a stop faster, something I need in ancient, dark, candle-lit monasteries. The image quality is fine for much of my work for print and publication.

However on this trip, I've downsized and left my D800s and the heavy glass back in California. I'm using a Panasonic 7-14mm on both my GX7 and for high-res, an Olympus EM-5, Mk. II. The IQ is nearly the same using the sensor-shift high-res mode as the D800/17-35mm.

But the weight and size is so much better. The Nikon kit weighs in at 19 kg. The Panasonic/Olympus comes in 5 kg and 2/3rds the size. I love the low-light ability of the D800 and fast lenses but my aging body really loves the size/weight of the m43 and small, sharp lenses!