Looking for comments from the group on the Nikon 16-35.

Ted Evans · Mar 19, 2015

At present, I am using a D7100 and a 18-140 for general use but I'm watching for a D800/e and will need a general use lens for it. An old Nikon MF 20 f/2.8 is the extent of my short range FF lens and then it jumps to the 70-200. The 14-24 is not affordable and probably would not be at the top of the list even if it was so I have been looking at the 16-35 f/4. There is a fair discount on it at present and I am trying to decide if I should go ahead and get it before getting the D800. Would it be worth the money on a D7100 if for some reason I fail to get a D800? Or, would you have other suggestions?

Derrel · Mar 19, 2015

16-35 VR has high sharpness, VR, and a lot of linear distortion that most people feel needs to be corrected in software, but overall an excellent lens, one which can easily accept filters. The new 18-35 AF-S is starting to show itself to be a nice lens...starting to see more and more good work coming from that lens. Both of those lenses are in the "safe and sane" size for actual normal carry and use....the 14-24 is a monster for anything other than dedicated, 'serious shooting' outings.

tirediron · Mar 19, 2015

I've had mine since very shortly after its release, and I'm very pleased with it. That said, I rarely use anything wider than 24mm, so this lens doesn't come out of the bag all that often, but when it does, I'm pleased with it. It can have some pretty severe distortion at the bottom end, if you give it the worst of all possible worlds. Here's a quick & dirty review I did four or so years ago.

Ted Evans · Mar 21, 2015

I have now made up my mind.....I think......to purchase the Nikon 16-35 f/4 lens. Adorama and B&H list it with a $260 rebate, however, they are back ordered. Oh well, perhaps I will change my mind before they are back in stock.

sandollars · Mar 22, 2015

Don't change your mind. It's a great lens. Like tirediron said, mine does not get out of the bag often, BUT when it does, it makes some incredible images. I love photographing historical buildings and this is the prefect lens for that. Fairly fast, and razor sharp for a variable focal length. the VR comes in handy. Obviously, it's a great landscape lens too..

Ted Evans · Mar 22, 2015

sandollars said:
Don't change your mind. It's a great lens. Like tirediron said, mine does not get out of the bag often, BUT when it does, it makes some incredible images. I love photographing historical buildings and this is the prefect lens for that. Fairly fast, and razor sharp for a variable focal length. the VR comes in handy. Obviously, it's a great landscape lens too..

Thanks for the comments sandollars, the primary purpose for me would be landscapes. I have FF covered from 70 to 600 but a MF 20 f/2.8 is the only thing below 70 and I prefer zooms....I dislike changing lens or having to take more than two steps forward and backward to frame something. I am not lazy....I just like to save energy.

Ted Evans · Mar 23, 2015

tirediron said:
I've had mine since very shortly after its release, and I'm very pleased with it. That said, I rarely use anything wider than 24mm, so this lens doesn't come out of the bag all that often, but when it does, I'm pleased with it. It can have some pretty severe distortion at the bottom end, if you give it the worst of all possible worlds. Here's a quick & dirty review I did four or so years ago.

Thanks for the link tirediron, quite informative. Its primary purpose for me will be landscape but I may have been smarter to go for the 24-120. I have the 18-140 kit lens with the D7100 and really use it a lot but I like what I have seen coming from the 16-35. Thanks for the comments.

fjrabon · Mar 23, 2015

The thing to keep in mind is that on a full frame this will not be what the vast majority of people consider "general use" it will definitely be a wide to very wide angle. This would be the equivalent of a 10-23mm lens on a D7100.