Reading mode: Light Dark

16-35 mm photozone review online! (part 2)

Go to last post
Kaj E said:
One would have expected more significant improvements compared to the 17-35 considering the advances in technology. One can just hope that a non-VR f/2.8 true pro upgrade will arrive in due time.
Click to expand...
Earlier you stated that the optics of the 16-35 were not "stellar" and that the 14-24's optics are what you consider "stellar." Again, you are comparing the $1700-ish lens to the $1200-ish lens. I don't think anyone would argue against the idea that the 14-24 greatly improves upon the 17-35. Assuming you agree, does the 14-24 not represent

a "non-VR f/2.8 true pro upgrade...?" They cost about the same and the 14-24 blows the 17-35 out of the water--sounds like a true upgrade.

On to the 16-35...

So you're saying that the 16-35, priced at 71% of the price of the 17-35 doesn't improve the 17-35 enough? Some would argue (with posted photographs) that the 16-35 is much improved over the 17-35 while costing 71% of the price. Regardless of how improved you feel the 16-35 is or is not, ANY improvement over the 17-35 for a 30% cost savings would seem like a good deal. Even if the 16-35 could only perform exactly the same as the 17-35, it would doing so for a 30%. Who wouldn't want to save 30% getting the same optics? If the 16-35 was more expensive than the 17-35, one could easily argue that the improvements were not worth the additional cost. To say the 16-35 needs "more significant improvements compared to the 17-35..." when it costs 30% less than the lens it improves on is a silly argument. You're essentially saying you would pay more for a lens that performs the same or worse. Now, if you want the f2.8, that is a valid argument for the 17-35. If you own a 17-35 and don't think the improvements are worth switching for, great, another strong argument. But to simply say the 16-35 doesn't improve the more expensive lens enough doesn't make sense.

The other thing I find amusing is the fact that people are ignoring the photos posted of this lens. People keep going back to the photozone review. That is one review and one opinion. How about the opinions of those that have positive feedback? What about the photos from this lens, during actual use? I respect PhotoZone; however, they are but one opinion that should be factored in, along with the various other opinions on the lens, both good and bad.
 
rrweather said:
Is it not true of almost every zoom lens (even some primes) that the image quality is best in the center and degrades towards the edges? The 17-35 has been proven to experience this; yet, it has no VR to blame it on.
Click to expand...
The 17-35 was made to perform on 35mm film and the D1 digital SLR, which had a DX format sensor. Its poor edge performance on FX is because it was never designed to work on FX - they didn't have a full-frame sensor to design it to work with (remember, it was introduced in 1999 and therefore must have been designed years before).

FX sensors require wide angles to be designed differently to produce good results in the edges. The 14-24, 24-70, and 24 PC-E are examples of new design, and they produce excellent results
rrweather said:
The $1700 WA zoom experiences degrading edge sharpness but the $1200 WA zoom would not if it did not have VR? Again, ridiculous
Click to expand...
No. It goes like this: if Nikon had not put VR on the 16-35, they could have designed the lens using a different optical formula alltogether, bringing performance closer to that of the 14-24.
rrweather said:
Maybe it's just me, but when someone challenges a company with the notion that he or she knows better than the engineers designing the products, I begin to become skeptical.
Click to expand...
Nikon themselves have said that they didn't put VR into the 24-70 because VR is not possible to put in the optical formula used in that lens, and a formula that does allow for VR would produce inferior image quality. As shown in the 16-35.

Nikon has to listen to customers, whether they know what's best for themselves or not. Otherwise they will be past customers.
 
Kaj E said:
I do not challenge the engineers. I question the marketers that seem to have gotten the last word in what product to design. "Listen to the customers" regardless of how ridiculous their requests are.
Click to expand...
Requesting stabilization on wide angles and normal lenses isn't ridiculous. It is sometimes useful. Now, it is up to Nikon whether they implement it in the lens or like Sony, Pentax, etc. do, by moving the sensor. There are some well known professional photographers who have moved to Sony because of this feature precisely because Nikon and Canon do not provide these lenses (until now, and even now, just one mediocre lens with f/4 aperture, whereas Sony users can utilize f/1.4-f/2 glass with stabilization). Now, I think these applications where VR is useful on short glass are few and not so common, but they do exist, and they do matter to some. I personally would not want VR if it means non-VR lenses are not available, but since this is not the case, I wouldn't mind having the option.

Whether Nikon has produced a really successful implementation of a VR wide angle in the 16-35 is a matter for debate, but they will continue development.

Personally for me VR is of little significance, and I prefer tripods but those can not always be used.
 
However, if they made a lens with the same optical formula like the 14-24, just f4 instead of f2.8, it could have the same optical quality (at least), be lighter (less glass), cheaper and probably take filters, too ...

That was something I was hoping Nikon would do.
rrweather said:
I find it interesting that most of the negative comments come from individuals that have never even held the lens, not to mention use it. There are mixed reviews from people that are using the lens, which is helpful. Some people with the lens, seem to really like it. Others didn't like it or felt they had a bad sample. Inevitably, the people that like the lens get slammed by the people that stare at MTF charts and make their hypothetical lens purchases off those charts. I also find it interesting that people expected the 16-35 to be just like the 14-24 but cheaper, take filters, and only missing the 2 degrees. If Nikon, or anyone for that matter, could produce the optical quality of the 14-24 in a 16-35 lens, and make it cheaper, they would do it in a heart beat. Canon, Sigma, Tokina, would all be lined up making lenses that compare to the 14-24 but have them cost $1200 and take filters. There is a reason the 14-24 costs what it does. There is a reason the 16-35 does not have $1700 optics. One thing I would like to see is a direct comparison between the 16-35 and the 17-35 since those are the two lenses I am considering. For the comparison to be fair, the testing conditions should be the same (same camera, same day) and the results should be published. I'm not interested in, "my results show the 17-35 blew the 16-35 away..." without some photos to back it up. That brings me to my last pet peeve, the ultimate test is producing quality photographs. I really don't care about numbers (good or bad) if the equipment can not be used to produce good results. For the people that slam a lens (or any piece of equipment), show me a photo that was ruined by the lens you were using. Often the lens is to blame for poor photos when no lens could make those photos look good. Sorry for the rant.
Click to expand...
--
chalnicolas
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9578013851/photos
 
It makes sense to a photographer but perhaps not so much to a corporate bean counter. I could envision his or her concern being that just such a lens would significantly cannibalize 14-24's sales. New products, as opposed to replacements, are meant to capture new markets not steal from established ones.
chalnicolas said:
However, if they made a lens with the same optical formula like the 14-24, just f4 instead of f2.8, it could have the same optical quality (at least), be lighter (less glass), cheaper and probably take filters, too ...

That was something I was hoping Nikon would do.
Click to expand...
 
I posted some 16mmF4 and 32mmF4 samples in full size jpeg, saved as 80% quality after convertion from RAW in Nikon Capture NX2. No additional PP.

These are by no means pictures that I would "keep", only pictures taken for lens evaluation after I just got my 16-35... Because of bad weather ánd lack of time, I'm not in a possibility to take better samples right now.
maxthefrenchy said:
Shot us a shot at f/4. It would be nice to provide the original size so that we can judge about the discrepancy between center and corners/borders...(and I want to see all corners and all borders)

At 1260 USD, it is I think normal to worry about such issues...
Click to expand...
--
Kindest regards,
Stany
http://www.fotografie.fr/
http://www.fotografie.fr/fotoforum/index.php

I prefer one really good picture in a day over 10 bad ones in a second...
 
very well said.

i was wondering the same today.... i mean it's good that there are so many opinions and views on this lens...appreciate that too... since it gives diff readers more thigns to think about before their purchase..... .but sometimes i find the arguments or points a bit flawed... esp given all 3 of them are diff (price/focal length/aperture/weight/ability to apply filter etc) and not sure why some might say the 16-35 despite cheaper shd have better quality than xxx.

for those who think the 16-35 shd have 'at least' certain level of pic quality might make more sense..but then it's up to one to judge since there are not too many options out there to choose from with the specs/price it offers. alos i think it is hard to pinpoint a level of quality it shd produce given a price...esp how sometimes these things are all relative...
 
rrweather said:
The other thing I find amusing is the fact that people are ignoring the photos posted of this lens.
Click to expand...
Agree. Some seem to base themselves even on statements from people who didn't ever touch this lens...

About this, one sample about the totally false 16-35 vignetting myth:

One photographer on this forum, -who I respect very much-, wrote that the vignetting of the 16-35 at 16mm and F4 was so bad at that it wasn't even possible to correct in PP. Despite my respect for his opinion, this statement was totally wrong.

Underneath the proof with a picture, before PP and after PP. The vignetting of the 16-35 at 16mm and F4 is so low that there is no problem at all for correction by pulling the vignetting correction slider in ACR or NX2 a little. The vignetting is so low that it even isn't a problem at all to overexpose the corners if you would like to...

So, the 16-35 F4 vignetting myth debunked...

The original picture, 16-35F4VR on D700 at 16mm and F4:



And the same picture after pulling the vignetting correction slider too far:



--
Kindest regards,
Stany
http://www.fotografie.fr/
http://www.fotografie.fr/fotoforum/index.php

I prefer one really good picture in a day over 10 bad ones in a second...
 
rrweather said:
Kaj E said:
One would have expected more significant improvements compared to the 17-35 considering the advances in technology. One can just hope that a non-VR f/2.8 true pro upgrade will arrive in due time.
Click to expand...
Earlier you stated that the optics of the 16-35 were not "stellar" and that the 14-24's optics are what you consider "stellar." Again, you are comparing the $1700-ish lens to the $1200-ish lens. I don't think anyone would argue against the idea that the 14-24 greatly improves upon the 17-35. Assuming you agree, does the 14-24 not represent

a "non-VR f/2.8 true pro upgrade...?" They cost about the same and the 14-24 blows the 17-35 out of the water--sounds like a true upgrade.

On to the 16-35...

So you're saying that the 16-35, priced at 71% of the price of the 17-35 doesn't improve the 17-35 enough? Some would argue (with posted photographs) that the 16-35 is much improved over the 17-35 while costing 71% of the price. Regardless of how improved you feel the 16-35 is or is not, ANY improvement over the 17-35 for a 30% cost savings would seem like a good deal. Even if the 16-35 could only perform exactly the same as the 17-35, it would doing so for a 30%. Who wouldn't want to save 30% getting the same optics? If the 16-35 was more expensive than the 17-35, one could easily argue that the improvements were not worth the additional cost. To say the 16-35 needs "more significant improvements compared to the 17-35..." when it costs 30% less than the lens it improves on is a silly argument. You're essentially saying you would pay more for a lens that performs the same or worse. Now, if you want the f2.8, that is a valid argument for the 17-35. If you own a 17-35 and don't think the improvements are worth switching for, great, another strong argument. But to simply say the 16-35 doesn't improve the more expensive lens enough doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...
Yeah, let's just accept that the 16-35 is a consumer lens, not up to pro quality and price.
--
Kind regards
Kaj
http://www.pbase.com/kaj_e
WSSA member

It's about time we started to take photography seriously and treat it as a hobby.- Elliott Erwitt
 
Photo_AK said:
Looks like Lloyd Chambers is about to make us happy (or sad ...) with his 14-24/16-35/17-35/24-70 Nikkors comparison.
Click to expand...
From his site:

'I have already shot and compared (not published) three of the zooms: the 16-35, 14-24 and 24-70 ... I’ve been examining the results ..., and I have to say the 16-35mm f/4 VR looks very promising in several ways, but that its performance varies over its range in ways that might really matter to some.

--

Robert Capa said 'you can never get close enough'. Well, he did.... He also often visited my daily photoblog at http://logatec.blogspot.com/
 
rhlpetrus said:
It looks like the 14-24, re front element, thus my guess is it doesn't take filters as well. Now imagine it in the 16-35 range

Click to expand...
No one tells that 16-xx f/2,8 zoom could be made in a way that you could NOT use filters with it. The question is, is it really needed to achieve excellent IQ?

BTW, we don't know how good new Tokina 16-28 f/2,8 will be. But something tells me that they've taken Nikkor 14-24's design as a base, so we could expect great IQ from that lens.
 
  • The same about center sharpness.
  • My 16-35F4 and also the one from my photography mate is sharper all over the frame than our 17-35 was.
  • The 16-35' distortion is quite pronounced @ 16mm but while it's no moustache distortion it's easy repairable in PP. Above that the 16-35 distortion is on pair with a 17-35.
About distortion the 14-24 blows away both 16-35 and 17-35.
  • The 16-35 produces more cripsy and contrasty amages and vibrant colours than my 17-35 did, very probably as a result of the nano coating.
  • The 16-35 has VR, very helpfull in some conditions like musea.
  • Corner sharpness is way better than my 17-35(and also the one from my photography mate).
  • Vignetting is very well controlled, (whatever photozone says), even @ 16mm and F4 it is very easy to correct in PP. In underneath thread you find live sample.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=34794117

My findings are based on using this great lens every day since a couple of weeks and after 5 years 17-35.
  • What is funny to read is that someone mentioning the 16-35 being to big, bought a 14-24 instead... (a 16-35 is 680gr, a 17-35 is 745 gr and a 14-24 is 1000 gramms)
  • The regular price in Europe for a 16-35 is approx 70% of what the price of a 17-35 used to be when I bought mine.
TMHO the 16-35 F4 is simply a great lens, about IQ on pair with the 24-70 and 28-70 Nikon' tradition and a progress over the 17-35.

The 16-35 is by no means a replacement or alternative for the 14-24 F2.8, they serve different needs and purposes and there are very good reasons to have both..

--
Kindest regards,
Stany
http://www.fotografie.fr/
http://www.fotografie.fr/fotoforum/index.php

I prefer one really good picture in a day over 10 bad ones in a second...
 
Stany,

I think for some, it is more about impressing friends/family/camera club. It's not about results of actually taking pictures. I have used a 17-35 for 4 years, so I am quite familiar with that lens and landscape photography. The 17-35 is a very good lens, bottom line..... The 16-35 is better.

Nikon now has the top 3 wide angle zooms.

--
I'm there to enjoy the scenery, I just happen to bring my camera along

http://www.pbase.com/ddietiker/latest
 
Alright, I have now a bit more time to look at the two samples.

(i) first sample

Top left corner is OK, left border is fine, bottom left corner is bad (but maybe this part of out of focus)

It is difficult to judge the top border, top right corner and right border because it is mostly blue sky.

Bottom border and bottom right corner are ok, but nothing thrilling!

The image suffers a lot from distorsion, but no big surprise here at 16 mm with close subject.

(ii) second sample

IMO, this second sample is much less convincing. The bottom right corner and the right border are no good. But what strucks me the most is the amount of distorsion, the boat (where there is the Dunkerque) looks absolutely distorted, as well as the poles. That's somply no good for a 1260 USD lens...
 
Not surprised at all.

I always thought people who always ask for Nikon to make F/4 zooms because "they are small" need to rethink what they're saying. Well, here it is, they got what they wanted - a 16-35/4 zoom, and it's bigger than a F/2.8 zoom.

Be careful what you wish for, I guess.
reginalddwight said:
reginalddwight said:
I have never seen an f4 lens so huge, long and expensive.
Click to expand...
I have to admit that I am also somewhat surprised to see the large size of the 16-35/4. Lengthwise, it dwarfs the 17-35/2.8 and rivals the 14-24/2.8. I am not a lens engineer. Is VR the main reason for the size, or is it the 17 elements in 12 groups? 17-35 has 13 in 10; 14-24 has 14 in 11.

Below is from photozone.de website.

Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Richard Murdey
Help me pick out a ultrawide zoom lens!
2
Replies
29
Views
26K
Bernard Delley
B
D.A.A.N.
Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 vs Fuji 16-50 /16-55
Replies
19
Views
30K
baobob
baobob
Z
16+28-200 -> sony/canon + UWA (tamron 16-30, 17-50, sony 16-35, canon 14-35, 16-28)
Replies
10
Views
8K
zalmanium
Z
Rightsaidfred
Side by side test: Viltrox 13/1.4 vs XF 8-16/2.8 @ 13 mm
Replies
4
Views
9K
Rightsaidfred
Rightsaidfred
D.A.A.N.
Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 vs Fuji XF 16-50 f/2.8-4.8 or 16-55 f/2.8
Replies
0
Views
8K
D.A.A.N.
D.A.A.N.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top