Nikon AF-S FX NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED Vibration Reduction Zoom Lens with Auto Focus for Nikon DSLR Cameras

I own several primes in this range as well as the 14-24, so I was wondering if the 16-35 would really do anything for me. After a month of working with this lens I can say it definitely has a place in my bag and I fear the 14-24 is going to be going on ebay soon.The 16-35 feels like most late-generation Nikon lenses: Solid and smooth. Although the body is some sort of plastic it doesn't really feel cheap, and the weight savings is appreciated. No aperture ring which matters to fewer and fewer each day. For me I appreciate having one less opening in the lens case. A nice addition to this lens and other current gen Nikon lenses is the index dot for mounting the lens. Many earlier Nikon lenses didn't have this dot and I'd end up making little white tape wedges to substitute.Optical quality is amazing. One of the big differences between this lens and the 14-24 is the lack of ghosting, particularly with night shots and point light sources. I shoot a lot of cityscapes at night and I never used my 14-24 because it's just awful with flare and ghosting due to that big round front element. The 16-35 has none of that mess, which is great. Still not as clean as my primes in extreme situations but much much better than the 14-24.The VR is actually a lot more useful than I thought it would be. It definitely sharpens things up when running and gunning handheld in the city. No downsides that I can find. Having a standard filter thread is a godsend coming from the 14-24. Being able to use a standard polarizer and my "big stopper" ND is really nice. One downside (compared to primes) is the size; it's about the same length as the 24-70, but compared to the 14-24 not so bad.All in all I'm really pleased with this lens. I can't seem to find a reason to take the 14-24 out much anymore. The VR isn't a feature to buy this lens for but it's nice to have. No reason to buy the 14-24 versus this lens...most cameras these days have no problem compensating for the loss of a stop and the difference in DOF just isn't going to be that noticeable

I am a Professional landscape photographer. All my testing was done using a D3x. I have owned this lens for almost a month. When it first arrived I tested it extensively with a D3x against my Nikkor AF-S 17-35 f2.8, this lens is quite a bit better. It is a lot sharper, much better micro-contrast all the way to f11, corners are sharper with far less CA and fringing. It has barrel distortion at 16mm but it is easily correctable in photoshop and generally doesn't create problems with landscape photography uncorrected. If you shoot architecture, the 14-24 would probably be the better choice since it has better corners and less distortion from 14-19mm. The corners of the 16-35 at the wide end are very good compared to any other wide zoom. After reading several independent reviews comparing the 16-35 and the 14-24, the 16-35 is the better lens after f4 between 20 and 24mm. If you are a landscape shooter and are thinking about the 17-35, the 16-35 is the better choice.Over all, I would recommend this lens as a great Landscape lens.Update: Nov. 15th 2010All my previous testing was done on a D3x, 24.5 mega pixels. I sold my 17-35 f2.8 soon after using this lens. It has become my most used lens, rarely comes off my camera. For those comparing the 16-35 to the 14-24, it is the wrong comparison. The 14-24 is excellent from 14-19mm and from f2.8 to 5.6 but starts to lose micro contrast as you stop down further. The 16-35 gains micro contrast through f11 and is the better lens corner to corner from 20-24mm. Remember, we are talking zooms here, so all zoom ranges must be considered. I consider the 14-24 to be more of an architecture/event lens that can do landscape, the 16-35 a landscape lens best stopped down.I have also found through a few months of using the 16-35, the barrel distortion at the wider end is never noticeable in my landscape shooting and I have never had to correct for it. One frustration is manual focusing for depth of field, I finally had to put permanent white dots on the focus ring for various distances as the lens is quite "touchy" and getting the proper hyper focal distance set is difficult.

So far this is an excellent lens. I'm using it with a Nikon D750. I tried the Nikon 18-35. It was very light weight but I needed something a little wider for interior architectural shots as I noted during a session at the Baltimore cathedral. I wasn't happy with people shots. Couldn't find the right amount of DOF. I tried the Tokina 16-35 but it is very heavy and the distortion made bad for people shots. It did good work on interiors but I didn't like the exposed glass. I previously used the Tokina 11-16 f2.8 DX when I used a D7000. That lens had a lot of distortion and I basically used it once year for a family group sho that I had to correct in post production. The FX 16-35 is not too heavy and has internal focusing and zooming. It's very sharp and great for architecture and people. I took shots of people sitting across from me at a table at 16mm without much distortion. The D750 removes the distortion that does show at 16mm and it is not a problem at 24mm. I compared it in a store with the Nikon 14-24. I saw a lot of distortion of people with that lens but a lot less on interior straight lines. It was slightly sharper than the 16-35, but not $1000 sharper and once again, at 16mm the d750 removed the distortion in camera. All in all this is a great compromise in weight with the 18-35 and in sharpness with the 14-24 at a reasonable price. I am happy so far.

Me gusta mucho

Excellent , very sharp and fast focusing , I recommended .

Secondo me per le mie esigenze personali l' obiettivo è molto valido, la nitidezza a diaframmi chiusa è ottima, d'altronde per foto di paesaggi il diaframma ottimale è 11. Come tante ottiche grandangolari la vignettatura è spesso presente ma si può risolvere in ps. Il peso non è eccessivo e volendo restare comodi e non troppo affaticati direi che è il giusto compromesso. Dai primi scatti direi che anche i colori sono molto belli, trovo che ci sia un buon equilibrio di colori che non sono troppo spinti. A distanza di alcune settimane confermo che l'ottica si comporta molto bene e in abbinata con la d750 sembra tirare fuori il meglio di se. La vignettatura non è assolutamente fastidiosa, in alcune sessioni di scatti non si è neanche manifestata. La nitidezza è ottima.

Hola, La verdad recomiendo este lente funciona muy bien en situaciones de poca luz, ideal para fotos de ciudad.en 16mm si existe algo de distorsión pero en 20mm en delante trabaja muy bien.

Extremely sharp and high performance lens for landscape shooting.