Nikon 16-35mm f/4G ED VR

[gckless]

I have a chance to possibly buy a Nikon 16-35mm f/4 for $500. Who has experience with it, and how is the lens? Most places say great, but most are also years old, and there has been some newer stuff, though not a ton in this focal length.

Here's the kicker: I'm shooting on a D7200 right now, and have a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8. I have absolutely no need for this lens. I'm thinking about picking it up for two reasons: I'm pretty sure (read: I have absolutely no idea, but I want to) I will be upgrading to a D750 at some point and I don't have wide-angle FX glass, and I think I could sell it for more than $500 if I change my mind (even back to KEH goes for more). I have not decided between the D500 and D750, but I think I want the increased ISO capability the D750 will give me over the D7200, even though I mostly shoot outdoor sports. That's a whole separate thread I think though lol. But as cheap as this is, I don't know if I can pass it up. The purchase wouldn't break me or anything, but I'd honestly prefer to have the money in my pocket.

In your opinion, scoop it up or pass?

 

[Peeb]

Personally, I've not had a great deal of success when purchasing something "I have absolutely no need for" with thoughts I can flip it for profit later if a future need fails to materialize.

OTOH, when I have ended up getting out of the endeavor at either break-even or at a reasonable profit, I find that the time/trouble expended "getting right" by re-selling always ends up being more work than I had anticipated, and I end up wishing I had just laid down and let the feeling pass rather than jumping in to begin with.

I'm not saying don't do it- but I'm saying I wouldn't do it...

 

[benhasajeep]

It's an average lens. Not very fast, not very wide. There are better lenses even from third party like Sigma especially on crop sensor cameras. But if your going to FX, it will be a decent lens until you acquire better ones. If your staying DX I would pass. FX it's probably worth the price until later (if it's fully functional that is).

 

[gckless]

Personally, I've not had a great deal of success when purchasing something "I have absolutely no need for" with thoughts I can flip it for profit later if a future need fails to materialize.

OTOH, when I have ended up getting out of the endeavor at either break-even or at a reasonable profit, I find that the time/trouble expended "getting right" by re-selling always ends up being more work than I had anticipated, and I end up wishing I had just laid down and let the feeling pass rather than jumping in to begin with.

I'm not saying don't do it- but I'm saying I wouldn't do it...

I hear ya. I've definitely had those moments where it wasn't worth it. One for no.

It's an average lens. Not very fast, not very wide. There are better lenses even from third party like Sigma especially on crop sensor cameras. But if your going to FX, it will be a decent lens until you acquire better ones. If your staying DX I would pass. FX it's probably worth the price until later (if it's fully functional that is).

Yeah, that's the dilemma, I don't know which sensor I will move to quite yet. If I stay DX, I'll just end up getting rid of it for a DX ultrawide. But, I know if I go to FX I will regret passing on this, because it's probably the ultrawide I'd end up grabbing anyway (can't afford the 14-24). The guy says it's in pristine condition, I'll look at it sometime in the next week or so. If so, I should be able to unload it for at least the same price I'm thinking. I'm hoping lol. I mean, it's an old lens, not like it's depreciating any more, unless a new one is released.

 

[nerwin]

I LOVE my 16-35 f/4. It holds up incredibly well with the D610 sensor, which I think is the same that's in the D750? Not too sure. But either way, I find it works well on 24mp fx sensors.

The copy I have is sharp, it's comfortable to handle, has filter thread and it's not heavy beast like the Nikon 14-24 or Tamron 15-30. I find it focuses quick enough for my needs.

I reckon that Nikon will someday update this lens, but I honestly don't know how much more of an improvement it would be. Maybe it will be AF-P, next gen VR, updated optics..who knows. The 16-35 is made in Japan, even the lens hood is made in Japan!

The only couple negatives I have:

• At 35mm, it's not the greatest in terms of image quality. Stopped down, it's better. But wide open at 35mm isn't like a 35mm prime. But in a pinch, it gets the job done.
• There is some distortion at 16mm which sometimes I like and other times I don't. But with lens corrections, it's EASILY fixable.

Even though it's an f/4 lens, you can still get some decent "bokeh" when you need to. I find the 16-35 a really versatile lens, it's great for just about anything but it's more suited toward landscape and travel photographers who don't necessarily need the extra 1 stop of light.

My recommendation is when using the lens during the day when it's bright enough to turn off the VR, you don't need it and it actually makes the lens even sharper...at least in my experience anyways. When the light goes down, switch that VR on and heck, you can shoot at 1/10th handheld at 16mm...no problem.

Now I'm speaking of this lens on full frame. On DX, I would not bother with it. It's pointless. On full frame is where it shines. So if you plan on switching to full frame like you mentioned, then it gets a recommendation from me. I'm incredibly happy with mine.

 

[jaomul]

Buy one if you want it when you get an fx. No point buying for a camera you might never own. You'd get more use from a tokina 11-20 f2.8

 

[Peeb]

Buy one if you want it when you get an fx. No point buying for a camera you might never own. You'd get more use from a tokina 11-20 f2.8

BTW, I use my DX tokina 11-16 all the time on my FX D610 in full frame mode with no vignetting if I keep it at 16mm. Here's an example:
Vertigo-inducing Redwood Trees- amazing! by Peeb, on Flickr

Thus, the lens works on DX and FX as well! Pretty slick.

 

[benhasajeep]

Buy one if you want it when you get an fx. No point buying for a camera you might never own. You'd get more use from a tokina 11-20 f2.8

BTW, I use my DX tokina 11-16 all the time on my FX D610 in full frame mode with no vignetting if I keep it at 16mm. Here's an example:
Vertigo-inducing Redwood Trees- amazing! by Peeb, on Flickr

Thus, the lens works on DX and FX as well! Pretty slick.

Never even thought to try it on my full frames. I have the 11-16 as well. Is this with the shade on or off?

 

[gckless]

I LOVE my 16-35 f/4. It holds up incredibly well with the D610 sensor, which I think is the same that's in the D750? Not too sure. But either way, I find it works well on 24mp fx sensors.

The copy I have is sharp, it's comfortable to handle, has filter thread and it's not heavy beast like the Nikon 14-24 or Tamron 15-30. I find it focuses quick enough for my needs.

I reckon that Nikon will someday update this lens, but I honestly don't know how much more of an improvement it would be. Maybe it will be AF-P, next gen VR, updated optics..who knows. The 16-35 is made in Japan, even the lens hood is made in Japan!

The only couple negatives I have:

• At 35mm, it's not the greatest in terms of image quality. Stopped down, it's better. But wide open at 35mm isn't like a 35mm prime. But in a pinch, it gets the job done.
• There is some distortion at 16mm which sometimes I like and other times I don't. But with lens corrections, it's EASILY fixable.

Even though it's an f/4 lens, you can still get some decent "bokeh" when you need to. I find the 16-35 a really versatile lens, it's great for just about anything but it's more suited toward landscape and travel photographers who don't necessarily need the extra 1 stop of light.

My recommendation is when using the lens during the day when it's bright enough to turn off the VR, you don't need it and it actually makes the lens even sharper...at least in my experience anyways. When the light goes down, switch that VR on and heck, you can shoot at 1/10th handheld at 16mm...no problem.

Now I'm speaking of this lens on full frame. On DX, I would not bother with it. It's pointless. On full frame is where it shines. So if you plan on switching to full frame like you mentioned, then it gets a recommendation from me. I'm incredibly happy with mine.

Man, you're making this tough! Thanks for your thoughts. This is the exact lens I would grab if I go FX. My indecisiveness about the sensor format is making it tough. When you were looking to buy, what prices did you see them at used? I guess I'm wondering if $500 is an "omg buy that thing NOW" price.

Buy one if you want it when you get an fx. No point buying for a camera you might never own. You'd get more use from a tokina 11-20 f2.8

I totally get this, and that lens was my DX choice. Really the only reason I'm considering this 16-35 right now is because of the price.

Buy one if you want it when you get an fx. No point buying for a camera you might never own. You'd get more use from a tokina 11-20 f2.8

BTW, I use my DX tokina 11-16 all the time on my FX D610 in full frame mode with no vignetting if I keep it at 16mm. Here's an example:
Vertigo-inducing Redwood Trees- amazing! by Peeb, on Flickr

Thus, the lens works on DX and FX as well! Pretty slick.

I did see that it can be used on FX, and I would grab the 11-20 if I'm buying a DX UW, so I would get a couple extra mm's too. But just because it works doesn't really mean I would want to use it. I really like your photo, but I don't necessarily like the lens performance on FX. It's usable at times for sure though, as you've demonstrated.



I dunno, I'm just super indecisive and don't know which sensor format I should buy, and now I'm stringing you guys along for the ride with me. Sorry!

 

[Peeb]

I LOVE my 16-35 f/4. It holds up incredibly well with the D610 sensor, which I think is the same that's in the D750? Not too sure. But either way, I find it works well on 24mp fx sensors.

The copy I have is sharp, it's comfortable to handle, has filter thread and it's not heavy beast like the Nikon 14-24 or Tamron 15-30. I find it focuses quick enough for my needs.

I reckon that Nikon will someday update this lens, but I honestly don't know how much more of an improvement it would be. Maybe it will be AF-P, next gen VR, updated optics..who knows. The 16-35 is made in Japan, even the lens hood is made in Japan!

The only couple negatives I have:

• At 35mm, it's not the greatest in terms of image quality. Stopped down, it's better. But wide open at 35mm isn't like a 35mm prime. But in a pinch, it gets the job done.
• There is some distortion at 16mm which sometimes I like and other times I don't. But with lens corrections, it's EASILY fixable.

Even though it's an f/4 lens, you can still get some decent "bokeh" when you need to. I find the 16-35 a really versatile lens, it's great for just about anything but it's more suited toward landscape and travel photographers who don't necessarily need the extra 1 stop of light.

My recommendation is when using the lens during the day when it's bright enough to turn off the VR, you don't need it and it actually makes the lens even sharper...at least in my experience anyways. When the light goes down, switch that VR on and heck, you can shoot at 1/10th handheld at 16mm...no problem.

Now I'm speaking of this lens on full frame. On DX, I would not bother with it. It's pointless. On full frame is where it shines. So if you plan on switching to full frame like you mentioned, then it gets a recommendation from me. I'm incredibly happy with mine.

Man, you're making this tough! Thanks for your thoughts. This is the exact lens I would grab if I go FX. My indecisiveness about the sensor format is making it tough. When you were looking to buy, what prices did you see them at used? I guess I'm wondering if $500 is an "omg buy that thing NOW" price.

Buy one if you want it when you get an fx. No point buying for a camera you might never own. You'd get more use from a tokina 11-20 f2.8

I totally get this, and that lens was my DX choice. Really the only reason I'm considering this 16-35 right now is because of the price.

Buy one if you want it when you get an fx. No point buying for a camera you might never own. You'd get more use from a tokina 11-20 f2.8

BTW, I use my DX tokina 11-16 all the time on my FX D610 in full frame mode with no vignetting if I keep it at 16mm. Here's an example:
Vertigo-inducing Redwood Trees- amazing! by Peeb, on Flickr

Thus, the lens works on DX and FX as well! Pretty slick.

I did see that it can be used on FX, and I would grab the 11-20 if I'm buying a DX UW, so I would get a couple extra mm's too. But just because it works doesn't really mean I would want to use it. I really like your photo, but I don't necessarily like the lens performance on FX. It's usable at times for sure though, as you've demonstrated.



I dunno, I'm just super indecisive and don't know which sensor format I should buy, and now I'm stringing you guys along for the ride with me. Sorry!

The 11-16 works great on fx but the software (photoshop) will NOT apply lens correction, which is a legit concern.

 

[nerwin]

When you were looking to buy, what prices did you see them at used? I guess I'm wondering if $500 is an "omg buy that thing NOW" price.

So I bought mine used from B&H for $800 and it was in like new condition. Heck, it smelt like a brand new lens! But around $800 is where this lens seems to holding used.

 

[gckless]

Thanks guys, I'm going to skip it for now I think. I just don't know what camera I'll be upgrading to yet, and there are so many lens choices that I'll be fine. I mean, Sigma 20mm f/1.4 Art! I'll probably end up regretting it later, but it makes more sense to skip it for now, for me.

 

[Derrel]

The 11-16 works great on fx but the software (photoshop) will NOT apply lens correction, which is a legit concern.

Does Ken Rockwell's review of the Tokina have some Lens Correction Profile data numbers at the end of the review? Many of his reviews do. Thought I saw those a while back on his site.

 

[Peeb]

The 11-16 works great on fx but the software (photoshop) will NOT apply lens correction, which is a legit concern.

Does Ken Rockwell's review of the Tokina have some Lens Correction Profile data numbers at the end of the review? Many of his reviews do. Thought I saw those a while back on his site.

Hmmm- I'll take a look. If the corrections can be put in manually I'd like to have that. The software won't automatically do corrections because thye assume that the DX lens would never be mounted on an FX body so they don't put the FX bodies in their list of 'suspects'.

 

[Peeb]

Another shot from the Tokina DX on my FX camera:
milky way oil well by Peeb, on Flickr