Is the Nikon 16-35 f4 significantly better than the 18-105 for a DX

Just looking at for example Photozone's tests (they have tested both lenses on DX), I would say the answer is no. The 16-35 is designed to be an ultrawide lens with a FX image circle. It might just edge out the 18-105 between 18-28mm, but above that it is pretty weak, 35mm being the 16-35's weakest point. If I were in your position and wanting something better than the kit zoom in that range, I'd be taking a very close look indeed at the new Sigma 18-35 1.8.

Hello,

I own the 16-35mm f/4 and use it on a D800 now. Before I used it on a D7000 with fearly great succes. I came from a Tamron 10-24mm, but that one didn't fulfill my needs when it came to sharpness, clarity, contrast etc. Although, on DX, the Nikkor 16-35 isn't nearly as wide as the Tamron, the gain in overall quality was amazing! At that time I also still owned the Nikkor 18-55mm kitlens which, in terms off quality, is the same as the 18-105mm but without the extra reach. Comparing them I could only came to one conclusion: Kitlenses are good! But that's only regarding the sharpness. When contrast, colors etc is also on your list of concerns, you know why you need to pay that extra dollar for the 'pro' lenses.

Range wise, the 16-35mm isn't that interesting on DX. For me it wasn't really wide enough, but at the time I bought it, I knew I was getting myself that D800 anyway, which eventually I did. On the D800 the 16-35mm really shines. It might not be the sharpest lens around @ 35mm looking at the MTF charts, but it still is more than sharp enough in that region in real life. Colors and contrast are amazing with this lens and I wouldn't want to swap it for anything else, anytime soon!

Please don't become a member of the Photozone and MTF cult, as it is not always relevant to what you want. Checking MTF charts could be helpfull in a sense of using it as a rough guideline, but no more than that.

The new Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 is interesting, nut only if you intend to stay with a DX sensor camera.

Take a look at some of my photos at my website if you are interested.

http://verbruci.nl/fun-fair-in-haarlem/

http://verbruci.nl/duesenberg/

http://verbruci.nl/oldkodakneon/

http://verbruci.nl/raininthecity/

http://verbruci.nl/winters-ending/

All photos were made with the Nikkor 16-35mm f/4 used on a D7000 and my Sunset Gallary also show a few photos made with that combination.

http://verbruci.nl/sunsetgallery/

arijitsarkar said:

arijitsarkar wrote:

Hello,

I use a D7000 with a 18-105mm kit lens. I am a landscape photo enthusiast. I was on the lookout for a good landscape / wide angle lens (without being ultra ultra wide angle) and came across three:

14-24 f2.8

16-35 f4

17-35 f2.8

At first I had zeroed in on the 14-24 (despite the crazy price) but then feedback around the inability to use filters, the weight and the fact that landscapes get shot closer to f8 made me think of the 16-35. I read some reviews that said it's almost as sharp as the 14-24.

Given that it is about $1200 my question is, it is much better than the 18-105 on a DX? I may upgrade to an FX in the future so the crop factor doesn't bother me much but I'm looking for it to have significantly better image quality to justify the outlay. If I do buy it, I would use it for all ranges up to 35mm.

Thanks.

Click to expand...

Frankly, the 16-35 doesn't make any sense on DX. It's neither wide nor long. As a general purpose lens on DX, it's outclassed by the cheaper and lighter 16-85 DX lens, which is better than the 18-105, but only a little bit.

If you want to spend some money on a new lens for DX landscapes, I'd get the Nikon 10-24 DX. It behaves much like the 16-35 on FX. I used to shoot DX landscapes and loved my Nikon 10-24. I now shoot with a 16-35 on a D800.

I used a Sigma 10-20 before I moved to the D800. Good enough for me and only sold it because I changed cameras.

I have the 1424 and I also bought a 20mm F2.8 for when I dont want the hassle and bulk of the larger lens. In an age where so much post processing is available to you, HDR etc what filters are you determined to use? There are filter kits available for the 1424 and lots of people have made kits at home more so to hold an ND filter or polariser.

If your passionate about landscape photography and want a smaller solution the 1024 or better still the 1224 would worth considering. May I suggest however you create a small folio with what you have and include panaroma's, HDR etc and see then, what it is you exactly need.

Very nice gallery and some great PP work.

I think it is a little wasted. Not that it's not worth it's price for what it is but that its designed for FX. So you are paying more for it to cover an fx sensor. If you will upgrade makes sense. In general though, I think a landscape zoom sometimes you will want a wider option than 17 on a dx. You'd be buying a landscape lens that is designed as 16-35 but on your camera would cover the equivalent of 24-52.5 which is fine if it works for you, but can be limiting.

I would suggest you really consider the wider used tokina offerings 11-16 or 12-24 or nikon 10-24 OR an upgraded dx offerings 16-85. Tokina also offers a 16-28 ff similar to the 14-24 on a budget. You may also want to consider the new 18-35 nikon in there if you will be shooting up in f8 region.

Bottom line unless you are sure you are upgrading to fx soon there are better value options on dx.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of the 16-35 (I own one myself and use it on a D600). I even don't completely agree with Photozone's conclusions about this particular lens. It does seem like we are in agreement though that the kit lenses are pretty sharp. So the main improvement the OP might see would be colours and contrast, which category the nano coated 16-35 would be hard to beat.

A lot of reccomendations in this thread have been for ultra wide zooms, but you said you didn't really want UWA, you asked for image quality / sharpness.

Personally I think UWA are good fun and I love my 10-24 and would urge you to think a bit more about UW but if you truely arent much interested in the wider end and feel 18 is wide enough for you I think your best bet is the new Sigma 18-35/f1.8

I realise you didn't ask for fast and will shoot mostly landscapes at F8, but the Sigma would be much better for you than the FX lenses you're considering.

1. Reports are its *very* sharp, beating a lot of primes for IC so I think it will give you the quality bump you're looking for.

2. $800, vs $1250 for the 16-35

3. You're pretty non committal on the move to FX ("maybe" and "future"). You might not have a huge need for f1.8 but at least its something you can actually use unlike the oversized image thats outside your sensor with the other 3 lenses.

4. The Sigma looks like building a strong reputation for itself, I think it will be an easy lens to sell without too much loss if you do move to FX.


Dave

No, definitely not!

If you want a high-IQ lens, then the 16-85, 17-55, Sigma 17-70, or most excitingly the new Sigma 18-35, will give you that without adding the enormous weight (OK, the 17-55 and 18-35 are fairly big and heavy, but you get f/2.8 or f/1.8 in return, whereas e.g. the 16-85 is just as fast as the 16-35 over the shared range, and a lot small and lighter) and bulk needed to cover the FX sensor - and for that matter as "normal" lenses you keep some of the range that you would have given up in the move to the 16-35.

If you do find that you want a wider lens, then the Nikon 10-24 or 12-24 are pretty good in IQ terms for wide lenses, but 16mm isn't that wide on DX!

As others have said, for IQ the best option is the Sigma 18-35/1.8. For versatility, then the 16-85 or Sigma 17-70 (the only like-for-like upgrades to the 18-105), and for wideangle the 10-24 or 12-24.

I have used Tokina 11-16mm with the D7000, and it was a great combo. Now I am using Nikon 16-35 with D800. For DX, 16-35 could be overkill, expensive and not a great range.

Why not try 16-85 or 10-24 DX lenses? They are pretty good and will cover better range. They are also lighter and less expensive.