Nikkor 16-35mm f/4

CaptainNapalm · Jul 12, 2013

Hi guys,
I'm in the market for getting a wide angle lens for my D600. Initially, I wanted to maybe save up for the 14-24 f/2.8 which everyone praises, but after doing some research I'm now starting to lean towards the 16-35mm f/4. I can get this lens in excellent shape used for about $800. First, the 16-35mm will cost me much less than the 14-24, almost half price. Second, I've already decided that I don't want a mid range zoom. I am totally happy with my 50mm prime for mid-range stuff and have the 70-300 for reach, so the 16-35 will give me more flexibility in the wide range as oppose to the 14-24 and close the gap towards the 50mm range more. I've done my homework and realize that the 16-35mm gets good reviews online however I also know that the 14-24 is the superior choice by a small margin based on what I'm reading. I'm wondering if any of you have tried, own, or know someone that owns the 16-35mm and if they're happy with it. Any experiences with either the 16-35mm or 14-24 (good or bad) would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance.

Derrel · Jul 12, 2013

Ohhhhhhh, $800 for it used??? I WANNNNNT THAT!!!!!!!! THat's a good price in my book. I've been giving the 16-35 VR a very,very serious look...last week I saw a nice, super-new one in-store used for $1050, but thought the price was just a bit too high to make it a really good deal...and I always like to get "a good deal".

In terms of optical performance, the 16-35 VR is very high. In terms of USEFUL focal lengths, I can NOT think of a better range on the market for FX; 24 is wide: 20 os very wide; 18 is super-wide; 16mm used to be exceptionally rare, AND this is 16mm rectilinear, not fisheye. 28 is its own length. 35mm covers one foot across for every foot back at closer ranges, and is SUPER useful in social and landscape scenarios.

14-to-24mm...."Ehhhh". so Go***n big andf so heavy, NO vr, so it's not that good for panning, needs a tripod for deep DOF, whereas the VR lens can be hand-held, and it has the ACTUAL, needed range that the 14-24 so,so pathetically lacks as an all-around utility lens.

14-24 has more wide-angle,so it's great at making things look far away, insignificant, and boring. And it utterly lacks any ability to hold the corners rectilinearly rendered...every single person or thing near the corners on a 24mm is wonky...people bent due to corner distortion, buildings distorted,etc. The 14-24 is a crappy lens for "social"/documentary/naturalistic work. Just the ***wrong*** focal length range...that's why 16-35/2.8-L in Canon, 16-35 L-IS, and and 17-35 in Nikon have been the go-to wide zoom focal length ranges for a decade or more....those zooms have the lengths you really WANT. That's why Canon's 17-40mm L is so popular: it has the right range for the real world, and it's smaller and lighter than an f/2.8.

I used to use the 17-35/2.8...SWEET range!!! It's large, yes, but the 14-24 is simply ridiculous, and a liability in social situations, unless you're shooting family or people who are used to a shutterbug pointing an obnoxiously large lens in their faces all the time.

CaptainNapalm · Jul 12, 2013

Derrel said:
Ohhhhhhh, $800 for it used??? I WANNNNNT THAT!!!!!!!! THat's a good price in my book. I've been giving the 16-35 VR a very,very serious look...last week I saw a nice, super-new one in-store used for $1050, but thought the price was just a bit too high to make it a really good deal...and I always like to get "a good deal".

In terms of optical performance, the 16-35 VR is very high. In terms of USEFUL focal lengths, I can NOT think of a better range on the market for FX; 24 is wide: 20 os very wide; 18 is super-wide; 16mm used to be exceptionally rare, AND this is 16mm rectilinear, not fisheye. 28 is its own length. 35mm covers one foot across for every foot back at closer ranges, and is SUPER useful in social and landscape scenarios.

14-to-24mm...."Ehhhh". so Go***n big andf so heavy, NO vr, so it's not that good for panning, needs a tripod for deep DOF, whereas the VR lens can be hand-held, and it has the ACTUAL, needed range that the 14-24 so,so pathetically lacks as an all-around utility lens.

14-24 has more wide-angle,so it's great at making things look far away, insignificant, and boring. And it utterly lacks any ability to hold the corners rectilinearly rendered...every single person or thing near the corners on a 24mm is wonky...people bent due to corner distortion, buildings distorted,etc. The 14-24 is a crappy lens for "social"/documentary/naturalistic work. Just the ***wrong*** focal length range...that's why 16-35/2.8-L in Canon, 16-35 L-IS, and and 17-35 in Nikon have been the go-to wide zoom focal length ranges for a decade or more....those zooms have the lengths you really WANT. That's why Canon's 17-40mm L is so popular: it has the right range for the real world, and it's smaller and lighter than an f/2.8.

I used to use the 17-35/2.8...SWEET range!!! It's large, yes, but the 14-24 is simply ridiculous, and a liability in social situations, unless you're shooting family or people who are used to a shutterbug pointing an obnoxiously large lens in their faces all the time.

Thanks for your very informative input. I too think the 16-35 will be a more useful focal range. Here in Toronto I found a private seller willing to part with his lens for $800, he had it listed for $1000 in 9/10 condition so I really think $800 is a great deal. Appreciate your feedback.