Comments on: Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR

By: mike

mike — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:45:41 +0000

The current 18-35/3.5-4.5 takes 77mm filters. I’m not sure why you think a 16-35/4 would take smaller filters than that …

By: mike

mike — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:30:03 +0000

I thought that’s what the 14-24 was for?

By: mike

mike — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:22:35 +0000

The 18-35 serves no purpose in the lineup currently. It’s an amateur lens without an amateur body. For landscape photographers, the 14-24′s only saving grace is its optical perfection. It seems to me that there are more than enough people that would like to get the same optical quality as the 14-24, but in a smaller package that takes filters. The 17-35 currently serves this niche, but it isn’t as sharp as the 14-24 (also, Nikon stopped manufacturing them a long time ago). For us amateurs using DX, there really is no point in getting this lens, pro build or not.

By: mike

mike — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:08:46 +0000

But it’s constant aperture … How many amateur zooms are constant aperture? I count … zero. I think it will have pro build and will replace both the 18-35 and the 17-35. The 18-35 is (relatively) small and light, sure, but it is not up to snuff for people with an FX camera (and why would a DX shooter be interested in it?). There is no point in making an FX wide with amateur build at this point.

By: Ubiquitous

Ubiquitous — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:45:23 +0000

The 16-35mm f/4G N VR lens makes some sense to me for FX format. It does not replace either the 14-24 or 24-70, but complements them. An f/2.8 version (or an updated version of the present 17-35) would have been a tremendous seller at the expense of both the 14-24 and 24-70, imho. It is the FX equivalent of the DX 10-24mm f/3.5-f/4.5.

What about for DX format and compared to the DX 16-85 VR? From 16mm-35mm is f/3.5-f/4.5 and superior from 36-85mm, in every respect. For DX format, the rumored 16-35mm f/4 VR does not make sense, imho.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:34:54 +0000

good point John… great point

By: Stu

Stu — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:45:42 +0000

Agreed, if Nikon bought out a 70-200 f/4 VR, I would buy it – no questions asked!

By: David

David — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:48:21 +0000

I agree that 16mm is more than wide enough for any serious landscape compositions. It would be interesting to see whether it would take 77mm filters because, if that were so, then I don’t see how it would be much lighter than the 17-35mm unless it is made of plastic. My guess is that something of that focal length and aperture will take 58mm filters and a step-up ring may be needed if you already have a collection of 77mm filters (though the ND Grads won’t work well stepped down since you lose the darker edges of the gradient).

An F/4.0 lens is much easier to design/make better and shaper than a F/2.8 lens; I gladly surrender the extra stop (and weight) for a lens that is sharper at all four corners. I am skeptical any zoom lens can really beat the fixed focal lengths in this range of zoon, but then again the 14-24mm lens proved everyone wrong on that front so lets see and hope!

By: Pat

Pat — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:16:02 +0000

Useless lens?

This lens is what a boat load of landscape photographers have been waiting for – I bet including folks like Thom Hogan and even Bjorn Roselett. If it is sharp enough wide open, have nano coating, and takes 77mm filters , then it would arguably be a better landscape lens than the 14-24.

16mm is wide enough for 98% of situations. And no landscape photographer would turn down a decent wide lens that weight 1.3-1.5 pounds versus the 2.2 pound/1 kilo 14-24!

By: 100% BS

100% BS — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 19:05:56 +0000

Bulls**t – show me one link where TH is specific about an upcoming product or about this 16-35 lens “we will see a long needed update on one of Nikon’s lenses” – which one? or “there will be a new Nikon DSLR by the end of the year” – everyone can say that for any manufacturer at any point of time and still be right

By: nico

nico — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:02:31 +0000

The most amazing thing in releasing such an useless lens, is that it could actually sell well !

By: Soap

Soap — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:03:29 +0000

What is the price difference between the 18-55 AFS DX and the 18-55 AFS DX VR? Pennies?
VR is a nearly free option when we’re talking the cost of pro lenses.

By: Bob Jobson

Bob Jobson — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:31:00 +0000

Zooms, schmooms.

By: [NR] admin

[NR] admin — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 03:12:00 +0000

I can change it back to black background

By: Peter

Peter — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 03:06:59 +0000

Ken Rockwell can

By: Peter

Peter — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 03:03:20 +0000

I believe studies have shown, or so my music teacher has told me sometime in the past. that black on very slightly yellowed off white, is the easier on the eyes to read.

By: Jim

Jim — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 01:26:45 +0000

I liked the white on black better – it didn’t bother me

By: sohnjwan

sohnjwan — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 00:51:05 +0000

while it isn´t that good wide open stop down and you have all the image quality you need from the lens -much better than any other option that aren´t the really expensive 17-35mm f/2.8 or the 14-24mm f/2.8 in Nikkor out of those 2 lenses Nikon doesn´t has a solid performer packed on a good body-

Speaking of which with the price increases thanks to the weak dollar Nikon should be rethinking their strategy with lenses, the 80-200mm f/2.8 IF AF-D ED was 800 bucks a year and a half ago right now is $1,100, the new 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II comes with a hefty price tag too (MSRP $2300), they may exercise some caution, they are wasting too much R&D in 18-something lenses (18-55, 18-55 II, 18-55 VR, 18-70mm, 18-135mm, 18-105mm, 18-135mm, 18-200mm, 18-200mm II)

By: a

Sun, 27 Sep 2009 21:53:59 +0000

17-40mm f4L is an old lens and might be replaced pretty soon and when it does get replaced believe me it will not sell for its current price. Besides the lens has weak corners to say the least so any f4 zoom from Nikon will be newer than age old 17-40mm and will be more expensive. If I was a betting man, I would say 1000 at least or it could be 1100. So don’t hold your breath.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 18:56:33 +0000

He’s written about having received tips about new lenses a couple of weeks ago. It’s safe to assume that this is old news to him. Or do you think that Admin here is the only guy receiving inside information? Get real.