Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

One of my best buys - Nikon 16-35mm

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

MattB1987
MattB1987 e2 Member 2420 forum postsMattB1987 vcard England
10 Dec 2012 - 10:05 AM

Morning everyone,
I'm not sure whether you are very interested but I am currently in the process of setting my self up for Nikon full-frame. My first purchase was a Nikon's 16-35 f4 lens which arrived last Thursday Smile

I had seen good reviews on here and when I got it had fired off some shots with it mounted on my D7000 and I was gob-smacked with it, its amazing!! I always meant to invest in good glass and got as far as the Sigma 10-20 but this new lens makes my old Sigma look like a toy, the sharpness blew me away!

Another thing that I noticed (which I am sure others discovered a while ago) was how good the image stabilisation is on it, I went to take a shot and didn't realise how low the light was and the shutter speed was far slower than I expected, but when I looked at the image afterwards (expecting a blurry mess) it was sharp as a tac!

Well after my experience I can now fully appreciate it when people say 'buy the best glass you can' they really are right, 100%!!! It really does make that much difference.

This is probably old news to most of you, but to any people starting out or wondering if it makes that much difference, I can confirm it really does, I will vow that from now on I will think more carefully about what glass I am putting in front of my sensor, lesson well and truly learnt!

If anyone else wants to add their experiences and opinions, I would love to hear them.

Matt

Last Modified By MattB1987 at 10 Dec 2012 - 10:38 AM
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
10 Dec 2012 - 10:05 AM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

EddieAC
EddieAC  9681 forum posts United Kingdom2 Constructive Critique Points
10 Dec 2012 - 1:04 PM

This is also apparent on the 50mm f1.8D lens that I have and is much better than my kit lens at the same focal magnification.

Your lens may be even better than you think. You would have lost a lot of the wide focal view with the lens on your D7000 due to the crop factor.

MattB1987
MattB1987 e2 Member 2420 forum postsMattB1987 vcard England
10 Dec 2012 - 1:37 PM

Ah brilliant, that good I bought one of those the other week too for my FX camera to replace my 35mm DX lens Smile I must say what I have shot with the 50mm I have been impressed with too.

I forgot about that, just got to wait until after to xmas to get my full frame, I think I'm gonna have some fun lol.

Cheers,

Matt

Nick_w
Nick_w e2 Member 73882 forum postsNick_w vcard England99 Constructive Critique Points
10 Dec 2012 - 3:39 PM

I agree Matt, it's a super lens, it handles flare so well too. Only slight downside is slight barrel distortion at 16mm, but that's easily corrected in Lightroom, I read such rubbish on other sites I nearly didn't buy it - glad I did now.

Yea the VR (and the same can be said for the 24-120) is amazing. With the 24-120 I've had sharp images at 120mm down to 1/4 sec - I dare say with the 16-35 it will be better at the wider focal lengths. Just remember to turn VR off when on the tripod ( although I've forgotten and not seen any problems).

User_Removed
10 Dec 2012 - 10:50 PM

I agree that it is a great lens.

I bought one rather than the 14-24mm when I moved to FX, mainly because of the lack of a filter thread on the 14-24mm (which, admittedly gets far better reviews than the 16-35mm lens, to the extent that some really serious Canon shooters use it with an adapter.)

I also have a 20mm f/2.8D Nikkor which is possibly a wee bit sharper and has less distortion but, obviously, lacks the flexibility of a zoom.

If you are a Lightroom 4 user, your will find that many of the faults of the 16-35mm lens are easily corrected using the standard lens profile and, to be honest, unless you are shooting architecture, any residual distortion is probably academic. The one thing I have never understood is why Nikon decided to burden the lens with VR. I keep it permanently switched off and can't imagine when it would be of any benefit.

.

Last Modified By User_Removed at 10 Dec 2012 - 10:52 PM
MattB1987
MattB1987 e2 Member 2420 forum postsMattB1987 vcard England
10 Dec 2012 - 11:26 PM

Hi Leftforum (sorry I don't know your name), I am indeed a LR4 user so that's good news Smile I guess I won't notice the distortion too much until I get it on the FX camera possibly?

I had a look at the 20mm f/2.8, would you say it was worth it? I was considering gettin one to complement my setup once I'd got settled with the new body.

The thingy that attracted me to the 16-35 was indeed the filter thread too (plus I could afford the 14-24 lol)

Well thanks for taking the time to stop by, it's good to hear I made a good choice Smile

Matt

User_Removed
11 Dec 2012 - 10:02 AM


Quote:
I had a look at the 20mm f/2.8, would you say it was worth it? I was considering gettin one to complement my setup once I'd got settled with the new body.



Matt

The reason that I bought the 20mm lens, Matt, was that when I travel abroad I try to keep weight down by not carting a load of heavy lenses about in airline carry-on baggage. The 16-35mm is quite a bulky and heavy lens whereas the 20mm is small and light. My main travel lens is the 28-300mm Nikkor and the 20mm gives a useful option when I want to go wider.

But I would say that you have made a good decision at this stage.

MattB1987
MattB1987 e2 Member 2420 forum postsMattB1987 vcard England
11 Dec 2012 - 10:06 AM

I see, good idea, that never even crossed my mind. How do you get on with the 28-300? I was looking at one of those for a walkabout lens and for a spot of casual motorsport snaps? I've read alsorts about it from review sites and they can't seem to make their mind up, what's it like in real life?

Thanks for your help

Matt

geffers7
geffers7 e2 Member 437 forum postsgeffers7 vcard United Kingdom1 Constructive Critique Points
11 Dec 2012 - 12:24 PM

I've just gone full frame with a D800 - I already had the 24-70 2.8 and bought the 16-35 2 months ago. The lens/camera combination is fantastic - sharp with good contrast although I have found that I had to re-visit my camera technique to get the absolute best out of it. I agree don't see the need for VR as I always use on a tripod but someone must need it I suppose!
I'm not sure the difference with the lens is always apparent on screen - its the prints that are the real improvement.
Geoff

MattB1987
MattB1987 e2 Member 2420 forum postsMattB1987 vcard England
11 Dec 2012 - 1:14 PM

Ah brilliant I'm going for the D800 too Smile How are you getting on with it? I think I'll be on a steep learning curve when I get mine, which is fine, i like a challenge Smile

Thanks for your help

Matt

KNS
KNS  5106 forum posts United Kingdom2 Constructive Critique Points
11 Dec 2012 - 1:36 PM

The D800 also works very well with the comparatively cheap 70-300 AFV RV G IF ED. not wide angle, of course, but a good option nonetheless... In fact ti works well with a few cheaper lenses 50 and 85 AFD to name but two....

No time to read the whole stream so if these are metioned above apologies for duplication Smile

Monster camera.....

KNS
KNS  5106 forum posts United Kingdom2 Constructive Critique Points
11 Dec 2012 - 2:43 PM

Oops typo should, of course read AFS VR G IF ED - damned Ipad LOL

MattB1987
MattB1987 e2 Member 2420 forum postsMattB1987 vcard England
11 Dec 2012 - 3:03 PM

Ah brilliant I'll have to check that out as well never thought about that one.
Thanks for all your help, much appreciated.
Matt

User_Removed
11 Dec 2012 - 3:14 PM


Quote: I see, good idea, that never even crossed my mind. How do you get on with the 28-300? I was looking at one of those for a walkabout lens and for a spot of casual motorsport snaps? I've read alsorts about it from review sites and they can't seem to make their mind up, what's it like in real life?

Thanks for your help

Matt

The only slight downside of the 28-300mm is a bit of zoom creep if you carry it about unlocked with the lens pointing down. Some folk think that is a big issue - frankly I don't find sliding the lock switch to be any sort of problem at all. Image-wise, it is superb on every count. Very little distortion at the extremes of the range and, what there is, is dealt with well by LR4. Certainly can't fault the sharpness. If you closely examine images at 200% you might find a wee bit of chromatic aberration along some high-contrast edges but, again, LR4 deals with that in a trice (and you're not going to print anything at 200% anyway!).

My "standard" suite of lenses for the D800 is the 16-35mm f/4, the 24-70mm f/2.8 and the 70-200mm f/2.8 (all the latest editions) and while each of those, at their respective maximum apertures (and maybe one stop slower) do give a slightly better IQ than the 28-300mm when examined very closely at huge magnification, at any other aperture and for all meaningful purposes in prints up to A3+ from a 50% crop of the full frame, it is totally impossible to discern any deterioration of IQ.

One of the sad, but totally understandable, things about equipment reviews in magazines and on the web is that the reviewers tend to be saddos who imagine that they have got to come up with some critical comment to justify their pathetic existences. My philosophy is that if I can't discern a problem then, for my personal purposes, the problem does not exist.

geffers7
geffers7 e2 Member 437 forum postsgeffers7 vcard United Kingdom1 Constructive Critique Points
11 Dec 2012 - 4:18 PM

Matt

I prefer full frame but then I was brought up on 35mm film - the camera is fantastic although mine went in for a repair - the 10 pin connector pushed back into the camera - others have reported the same fault but it was repaired under warranty in under 2 weeks.
Don't know what others think but for me its more demanding - I now usually shoot at F11 rather than F16 so critical focus is more important but maybe I should have been doing this already.
I think the 24-70mm is slightly sharper but then I use the 16-35mm most of the time now.
I print most of my images and the prints are fantastic.
Geoff

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.