very first impressions

Damoo wrote:

You seem to miss your 17-40L. Perhaps you could have waited before u were sure the 16-35mm f4L came on.

Quite recently I had to make some analysis on Nikkor lenses especially the wide angle full frame lenses. Trust me, it has not been a convincing experience. I felt the prices seemed quite high for the optical quality. There is NO 16-35mm f2.8 equivalent. And there is a 16-35mm f4 VR & 17-35mm f2.8 (stopped now). And a curious 18-35mm 3.5-4.5 (cheap & meant for full frame) which seems to be sharp but slow.There's no 'absolutely great' UWA lens except for Nikkor 14-24mm f2.8.

Point is: I learnt that UWA are always compromises.

Either the 'mechanics' (no screw in filter due to bulbed front end or manual focus only (zeiss) or...... or....) or the 'cost' has to be compromised.

I am having a good look at the 16-35mm f4L IS. If I am not thoroughly convinced, I will wait for sigma. For now, the IS, the corner sharpness, the build quality, the 77mm filter & above all the price of 1199$ - all look attractive enough to buy the 16-35mm f4L IS USM.

yes you are absolutely correct - it's all about compromises, either with features or cash

I thinkI do have the feeling that the 17-40 was a more solid feeling lens (note that I said 'feeling')
A lot of my reticence to fully embrace this lens may be due to what I am familiar with, I understand that, all the same, from my POV I was nevr interested in IS , if Im going that slow I prefer to use a tripehound anyway, I really don't mind using them, in fact I quite like the way it slows me down
So I still say that the filter is harder to put on. Has this beena problem? Not yet in the bleaching hot weather we uncharacteristically have here, but come the winthwr I suspect it'll be a different mater. These little things DO matter , to me anyway.

Trying to change filters (only ever use protector, ND and polariser) out there is always a bit of a worry due to all the sand and spray where I tend to take pics so the longer it takes me to change filters, which I do try to predict in the car but don't always get it right, is a pain, but really its the cold fingers sceario that gets me, so having it harder not easier to put on annoys me. Not the end of the world,.... just saying.
I have done lots more tests since I first wrote my initial impressions andfind that yes as expected the optics are much better away from the centre.

Im going to do more (because im curious ) to find the optimum way to work for ME. As it stands I can't really see much change in the centre definition over the 17-40 but neither was I particularily expecting it as the 17-40 was outstanding in the centre., and possibly even better once stopped down, not sure 100%, we'll see in time.

anyway just to reiterate -mostly for the sake of anyone that might think this is a review - it ain't! it's just impressions like i said and I was hoping to also get feedback from others as to their first impressions.

As it stands, for me, I do feel it was a lot of money for sharp edges, but then I did pay it so there you go. I still would have liked easier threads