why are opinions on the 16-35mm so varied?

Started Sep 23, 2012 | Discussions thread
Mach Schnell Senior Member • Posts: 2,705
Re: why are opinions on the 16-35mm so varied?

I agree with Alejandro. The varying comments about the 16-35 are mostly due to a wide variety in people's perceptions, expectations, and understanding.

The 16-35 is an excellent lens. I shopped for over a year before upgrading my super wide angle (the 18-35 Nikkor) to the 16-35. I bought the 16-35 more for the extra 2mm on the wide end and for VR, more so than improvement in image quality.

Truth is, stopped down to f/8 there is VERY LITTLE DIFFERENCE in the image quality of any of these lenses. The 16-35 is very usable wide open at f/4. More so than the 18-35. Yes, the 16-35 images are a tiny bit soft in the corners, but just barely. If you can stop down for most of your shots, and 18mm is wide enough for you on FF, then I would encourage you to consider the 18-35. It is much cheaper and considerably smaller and lighter. I am keeping the 18-35 for backpacking and other times when I want a lightweight kit.

I'm currently shooting with a D700. Perhaps when I upgrade to a D600 or D800 I will see more of a difference between lenses.

Here is a shot I took recently with the 16-35 at 16mm, albeit at f/16:

-- hide signature --


 Mach Schnell's gear list:Mach Schnell's gear list
Panasonic LX100 Nikon D800E Nikon D5500 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G +14 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow