Can't make up my mind whether to get Nikon 16-35mm F4G VR

Firstly, a bit of background here. I'm a hobbyist photographer who is only interested in shooting cityscape at twilight and dusk (I rarely shoot anything else). Currently shooting with Nikon D610 + Nikon 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G, and quite happy with image quality, etc. (although this lens sits at the bottom among Nikon's wide angle lenses, price-wise).

Having said that, I've occasionally come across situations that require a lens that's a little bit wider than 18mm. So, tempted to get this 16-35mm F4G VR, but often feeling that this lens is not really made for someone like myself. VR is not needed for me who always shoot on tripod at twilight and dusk, and constant f4 is redundant as I never use such large aperture. So, if I buy this lens, it's like I'm paying for the extra 2mm at the wide end only. Do you think it's worth spending? Or, any alternative solution to go a bit wider?

Any enlightenment will be appreciated. Thank you!

I've never had that lens but have read many reviews and heard from many who had, or have that lens. The consensus opinion seems to be avoid that lens and go for the Tamron 15-30. Quality that surpasses the 14-24. Some might suggest you get the Samyang 14mm if money is an issue.

I have, and shoot, and like the 16-35 f4 Nikon. I don't have any experience with the Tamron.

This is photo sample taken with 16-35 f4

--
'Photography is about feel of view, not field of view'
I view, I feel, I shoot

I went from Nikon 18-35 to the Nikon 16-35. I'm very pleased with improved performance of this lens especially in low light and night photography. The VR really helps.

Richard

Hi,

I sold 16-35 in favor of Tamron 15-30. It has lesser distortion at the wide end. In tight framing 16-35 is between 17 and 18 mm at wide end after distortion correction.

I have Nikon 16-35 VR. I use it a lot for landscape and night photography. I also took it with me to Iceland two month ago. On more than one occasion my camera and this lens was covered with snow, yet it performed very well. I was considering Nikon 14-24 but decided against it because of inability to use 77mm screw on filters.

I also think about getting the 14-24, both for the superior image quality and the extra 2 mm. I too am always on a tripod and don't really care about the VR, but hey, it can have its uses. If I ever did get the 14-24, I would keep the 16-24 as a complement to it. It is very sharp until you get to the edges, and it allows for filters, the indispensable one for me being the neutral density filter, which can't easily reproduced in post processing. Here a few night shots from Chicago with he 16-35.

Joey LLN said:

Or, any alternative solution to go a bit wider?

Click to expand...

I think you may find adding a Samyang 14/2.8 to your 18-35 a sensible solution.

Sagittarius said:

I sold 16-35 in favor of Tamron 15-30. It has lesser distortion at the wide end. In tight framing 16-35 is between 17 and 18 mm at wide end after distortion correction.

Click to expand...

Not this again... *sigh* That myth is like a you-know-what that won't flush on this forum!

After correction, you lose about 5% at the corners but nothing at the edges. The angle of view along the long side of the image doesn't change one bit. Since 99% of images are shot with the subject along the long or short edge of the frame (and not the diagonal), the lost area around the corners is irrelevant to the composition. It is not and should never be a factor in deciding on whether to get the lens.

Source: owned both lenses for several years. Did extensive comparisons.

stevef1961 said:

I've never had that lens but have read many reviews and heard from many who had, or have that lens. The consensus opinion seems to be avoid that lens and go for the Tamron 15-30. Quality that surpasses the 14-24. Some might suggest you get the Samyang 14mm if money is an issue.

Click to expand...

I read a lot in here and have not heard the consensus to avoid the 18-35G. Far from it, the consensus is actually highly recommended if one does not need wider or VR.

I have used the 1424 then to 1635 and then to 1835G. I have never regret my decision. The 18-35G is very sharp, good flare resistance and so light compare to other options and the OP is right on the price being cheapest. Only thing i wish (rarely) is that extra few mm at the wide end.

If i were the OP i will go with getting the samyang 14 2.8 for when you need the wider end.

If what you need is occasionally a bit wider download a trial of autopano pro or autostitch or MS ICE and stitch frames together.

thelenspainter said:

Sagittarius said:

I sold 16-35 in favor of Tamron 15-30. It has lesser distortion at the wide end. In tight framing 16-35 is between 17 and 18 mm at wide end after distortion correction.

Click to expand...

Not this again... *sigh* That myth is like a you-know-what that won't flush on this forum!

After correction, you lose about 5% at the corners but nothing at the edges. The angle of view along the long side of the image doesn't change one bit. Since 99% of images are shot with the subject along the long or short edge of the frame (and not the diagonal), the lost area around the corners is irrelevant to the composition. It is not and should never be a factor in deciding on whether to get the lens.

Source: owned both lenses for several years. Did extensive comparisons.

Click to expand...

Here is an image before correction.





and after







--
Best regards

I sold my Nikon 16-35 and bought a Tokina 16-28mm f2.8 lens which for me personally is the better lens and the price is right for the Tokina.

Larry

The 18-35mm that you have is sharper than the 16-35mm lens. If you want a wider field of view it is trivial even shooting hand held to use a manual exposure mode and take two shots instead of one with a pivot of about 15 degrees and increase the resulting pictures when combined into a image like that taken with a 14-24mm lens. With only two images being combined this entails little effort and is easily done in Photoshop.

You lose perspective with shorter focal length lenses and I prefer to minimize this distortion as much as possible. Taking multiple shots with a longer focal length lens and combining them into a single stitched image results in a superior picture. Try it and you will see what I mean. No theory just real world results.

I own the 16-35mm and have had a brief test with an 18-35mm. If I had the 18-35mm I would not trade it for the 16-35mm unless I had very specific needs. I think those needs would be:

Ability to take filters

Needing 16mm, but not wider

Scenes with close focusing only (the corners are very weak at 16mm focused at infinity)

Not looking to shoot below f8 at 16mm (my copy is not great at f4 at any focal length)

Need VR for 2 stops (in my view it is not as effective as more recent VR lenses like the 70-200mm f4)

I have worked out what I can and cannot use my 16-35mm for. If you accept working within its limitations it can be useful. As a result, I so no benefit from trading it for an 18-35mm. If it had an easier field curvature to work with then I would be interested, but I have not ever read much about that aspect of the 18-35mm.

For your use case I would consider the Tamron 15-30mm and Nikon 14-24mm if I could work without filters or could afford the bespoke larger filter options. The 14-24mm has the extra mm and it has been reported the Tamron is not quite 15mm. By reputation the Samyang 14mm is worth trying if you get a good copy and can treat it gently.

After much consideration, which included the 18-35G, 16-35G, Samyang/Rokinon 14/2.8, Tokina 16-28/2.8, and Tamron 15-30/2.8, plus other primes too numerous to mention. I stayed on-course toward the 14-24/2.8G, a grail-quest since at least 2011. I considered the ability/inability to accept filters, tendency to flare and ghost, the character of the flaring and ghosting, the distortion present at various focal lengths, the character of the distortion, and the ergonomics for hand-held shooting, plus, factors I have probably not recalled, in my half-awake, pre-caffeinated state, at this moment in time.

I have not regretted my decision to choose the 14-24/2.8G, but the margin was very close, and some of the factors, that were more important to me, will differ for other shooters. An upcoming road trip was also a factor, at the time, which did not help the Tamron 15-30/2.8, as it was too new on the market. With favorable user reports and images now posted, I am now considering adding the Tamron 15-30/2.8, for nightscapes, but probably the Canon-mount version, to use on my 5Ds R, which was not yet a factor when I bought my 14-24/2.8G. (I shoot both Nikon and Canon SLRs.)

Having said all of that, I am starting to favor lenses with a more "normal" angle of view for urban nightscapes.

--
I wear a badge and pistol, and make evidentiary images at night, which incorporates elements of portrait, macro, still life, landscape, architecture, and PJ. I enjoy using both Canons and Nikons.

calson said:

The 18-35mm that you have is sharper than the 16-35mm lens. If you want a wider field of view it is trivial even shooting hand held to use a manual exposure mode and take two shots instead of one with a pivot of about 15 degrees and increase the resulting pictures when combined into a image like that taken with a 14-24mm lens. With only two images being combined this entails little effort and is easily done in Photoshop.

You lose perspective with shorter focal length lenses and I prefer to minimize this distortion as much as possible. Taking multiple shots with a longer focal length lens and combining them into a single stitched image results in a superior picture. Try it and you will see what I mean. No theory just real world results.

--
George Carlin “The reason they call it the American Dream is because you have to be asleep to believe it."

Click to expand...

Shoot wide and post process the distortion out. the 18-35 is a consumer lens versus a gold ring 16-35 lens. The 18-35 has more distortion than the 16-35 at an 18mm focal length and is a variable f stop lens. I get tired of hearing about the large distortion on the 16-35 as compared to the 18-35, which is not true. The 16-35 is constructed much better than the 18-35. It has be shown that the distortion at 16mm on the 16-35 lens can be processed out losing very little of the frame before post processing.

I did have the 16-35 and sold it for the Tokina 16-28 f2.8 lens rarely talked about on this forum.

Larry

I have the 16-35 f/4 VR and really liked the lens. It's been great for wide angle landscapes and cityscapes. It's also my goto lens for backcountry hikes. The VR Congress in quite handy for handheld work.

Sagittarius said:

thelenspainter said:

Sagittarius said:

I sold 16-35 in favor of Tamron 15-30. It has lesser distortion at the wide end. In tight framing 16-35 is between 17 and 18 mm at wide end after distortion correction.

Click to expand...

Not this again... *sigh* That myth is like a you-know-what that won't flush on this forum!

After correction, you lose about 5% at the corners but nothing at the edges. The angle of view along the long side of the image doesn't change one bit. Since 99% of images are shot with the subject along the long or short edge of the frame (and not the diagonal), the lost area around the corners is irrelevant to the composition. It is not and should never be a factor in deciding on whether to get the lens.

Source: owned both lenses for several years. Did extensive comparisons.

Click to expand...

Here is an image before correction.



and after



--
Best regards

Click to expand...

That represents a significant loss of image in my estimation. The mirror on the far right is gone and the white band on the left is gone. One of the (several) reasons I don't use the 16-35/4 much anymore.

--
Happy shooting, Ted