Compared to Nikon 17-35mm F2.8 and 14-24mm F2.8 lenses

The first thing that strikes you on unboxing the 16-35mm F4 VR is its size - it's a surprisingly large lens given its relatively modest maximum aperture. To illustrate this, here it is between two wideangle stablemates, the venerable AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm F2.8D ED on the left and the AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm F2.8G ED on the right. It's the same diameter as the 17-35mm but longer, and very close in size to the 14-24mm (add the lens caps and hood and it takes up much the same space in a camera bag).

On the plus side, the 16-35mm's smaller maximum aperture does mean that it's lighter then either. However the addition of VR has clearly resulted in a rather less portable package than Canon's unstabilized equivalent, the EF 17-40mm F4L USM (which is 75% of the weight and 80% of the length).

Specifications compared

The table below gives a summary of the key specification differences between these lenses:

Compared to Canon and Sony 16-35mm F2.8 lenses

Just to add a second perspective to this, here is the 16-35mm F4 VR nestling between Sony and Canon's 16-35mm F2.8 zooms, which each of course gather twice as much light. The Nikon is physically longer then either, and is even fractionally heavier than the Canon to boot.