Nikon 16-35mm F4G ED AF-S VR Zoom Nikkor Lens

I had the Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 and the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 lenses but in all honesty the Nikon 14-24mm was rarely used due its heavy weight and less useful zoom range. At 24mm its still pretty wide.

So the 17-35mm became the one I took with me for landscape photography. Its a very good lens - sharp and contrasty.

When the 16-35mm came out I decided to sell the other 2 lenses and just have this one. However for a week I had all 3 lenses and was able to compare them.

Now personally I'm not in to shooting brick walls so I shot the landscape at the bottom of my garden - which does have a few large gardens and houses in it.

At f8 - f11 - the f-stop I most commonly use - I really couldn't tell the difference between the 14-24mm and the 16-35mm. Both produced shots with sharpness from edge to edge - even in extreme corners. The 17-35mm is just as sharp in the centre and edges but goes very slightly mushy in extreme corners. Not a big deal really but does show how good the 16-35mm and 14-24mm lenses are. Overall the 14-24mm does seem to the sharper of the 3 lenses though not by a massive amount. The 17-35 and 16-35mm are very similar in sharpness except in extreme corners where the 16-35mm wins out.

A comparison at f4 / 24mm showed the 16-35mm outperformed the 17-35mm and got very close to the sharpness of the 14-24mm. I'd expected to see a lot of softness wide open so delighted to see it remained acceptably sharp even in the corners.

I also compared the 17-35mm and 16-35mm in terms of contrast and colours and the 16-35mm was a subtle but clear winner. It just looks more colourful. I couldn't measure it but when you flick between identical photos with identical settings the 16-35mm has a slightly more pleasing colour - punchier and somehow brighter despite both shots being identical and both f11 at 1/200 of a second. Again the differences are not massive.

With the extra 1mm at the wider end and having vibration reduction the 16-35mm is a clear winner for me. However if you already have the 17-35mm the difference is not so massive you need to rush out and buy the 16-35mm - in fact the differences are fairly subtle. Ok the 16-35mm has sharper extreme corners but honestly how important are the extreme corners to most photographs?

The only downside to the 16-35mm is its slightly longer in length than the 17-35mm. I can just about squeeze in my D700 + 17-35mm in a small camera case but the 16-35mm requires the larger case I normally use for my D700 + telephoto lens. Weight wise the 16-35mm is 50g lighter than the 17-35mm.

I suspect in real life photography the 16-35mm and 17-35mm are so close in sharpness and quality no one will tell the difference unless you do 10 foot by 20 foot posters and they look hard at the far corners! The 14-24mm is the sharper lens but again in most cases you won't tell the difference without close examination on high magnification. Its downside is weight and limited zoom range.

I've had chance to test the VR ( vibration reduction ) feature of the lens. At home I can easily get sharp shots handheld at 1/4 of a second. Below that has improved impossible but 1/4 is pretty good for hand held. A visit to Lydford Gorge waterfall allowed me to test the VR in the real world and it worked pretty well. However at 1/4 second the number of blurred shots was about 60% - in part due to being rushed by people behind me trying to get past or simply being on unstable ground. I did however manage to get a few good and sharp shots of the rushing water - with the 1/4 ensuring the fast flowing water had a nice smooth look. Without VR it'd required a tripod to get any sharp shots - which would be pretty tricky on parts of Lydford Gorge due to its narrow paths and quantities of people

I've been considering buying Nikon's 14-24mm f2.8 for a few months to fit my D700 that I bought last November. However, I was concerned about the lack of protection afforded to the somewhat bulbous front element due to the inability to fit filters. Nikon's 14mm prime at least allows filters to be fitted to the rear but has an equally unprotected front element.
The new 16-35mm loses a few degrees coverage at the wide end, is a stop slower but takes 77mm filters. Nikon suggests 4 stops extra shutter speed from v2 of their anti-vibration system for this lens. Lets be conservative & say only 3 stops - that's still very significant & translates into being able to shoot down to 1/4" if you have steady hands. Many of my shots taken in a crowded part of London show blurry people against a sharp background. The loss of a stop in aperture is compensated by the VR but still allows you to have backgrounds out of focus.
Although the results are fair at f4 at the widest zoom setting - stopping down helps the edge sharpness. 16mm also suffers from far more barrel distortion & vignetting than the 14-16mm lens & is (from what I've read) not as sharp but much lighter & still well made.
I do love this lens & although it duplicates part of the range covered by my amazing 24-70mm f2.8. 16-35mm is perfect for architectural use & internal shots but fairly useless for portraiture unless you want to lose friends!
If like me, you have wanted a very wide angle lens for ages but have never used anything under 24mm - do take care with composition - looking through endless shots of a triangular shaped world where all verticals converge has a limited novelty factor after a while. One viable solution is to hold the camera straight, therefore forgetting about filling the foreground & crop it out instead during post-processing.
I bought a mid-price lowish profile UV filter at the time of purchase & fitted a Hoya HD CIR-PL low profile on top. There is a small but sharp amount of vignetting at 16mm f4 but none with just either filter fitted. Care is needed using polarising filters on such wide angle lenses due to uneven &/or unnatural variations in the brightness of blue skies. One significant thing missing on this lens is chromatic aberations (purple fringing).
The most significant weaknesses of this lens can be addressed with any decent photo-editing s/w & although my only Nikon VR lenses, the vibration reduction is far from being a gimmick, even on such a wide angle lens. If you have a DX format Nikon, there are more appropriate lenses than this one that is designed for FX format cameras.

I've had this lens for a while now. Initially I wasn't sure and nearly sent it back, but the more I use it the more I appreciate it. It was a toss up between this lens and the Nikon 14-24 2.8. I decided that the 14-24 was just too bulky and heavy to carry around all day, and that bulbous front glass was way too exposed to damage for my liking, not to say that it isn't an amazing lens - it is - but perhaps a bit too specialised for my tastes as a keen amateur rather than a pro. Having recently tried the 14-24 on my camera it has confirmed that I made the right choice as the other issue with the 14-24 is that although it is 2.8, taking sharp handheld shots in low light was very much hit and miss, whereas with the 16-35 VR I can nail a sharp shot more often than I could with the 2.8. At the end of the day it's horses for courses, if I could afford both, I'd probably have both as they both have slightly different uses - as a pure landscape lens the 14-24 on a tripod would edge ahead in image quality and the extra 2mm is always useful, but as I could only buy one, I'm glad I chose the 16-35 f/4 VR as it is a much more portable lens, takes filters and fits easily in a regular sized camera bag. Being approximately the same size a the 24-70 and 70-300, I don't need to buy another 'day' bag, whereas the 2.8 is huge at one end and simply does not fit into most bags. I'd suggest you try both out on your camera if you can't decide which to choose.

Results are sharp across the frame, and images show great colour reproduction and excellent contrast. If you go out of your way to create it, you can get flare but it is extremely good in that respect. It is a heavy lens if you are not used to the Nikon pro range of lenses but is one of the lighter pro lenses and does not become uncomfortable to carry around all day, even on a D300s with grip, or a D3s.