I agree Niko, no bashing. It does sound like the lens is disappointing for many uses, especially given the high price. Another reason to stay DX

WARNING- let's not turn this into yet another KR is an idiot or KR is god back and forth. Keep your KR opinions to yourselves please.

Ken Rockwell thinks that 16-35 is the sharpest ultrawide ever. Interesting read, check it out.

I have to say, as soon as I saw the rumors for this lens (on this great site) I wanted it. I figured it would cost maybe $800 especially from sites like Adorama and B&H, which would put it in direct competition with the Canon 17-40 f4.
I'm very disappointed that it came out for roughly $1300 as for that much I might as well buy the 17-35 f2.8.
I'm hoping that the recently announced Tokina 16-28 f2.8 isn't too expensive; because if it can come in for under $1000 and match the quality of the 11-16 then I'll be quite happy.

Here's the first "charts & graphs" review of this lens

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/492-nikkor_afs_1635_4_ff

I would second that... As a street photographer the lens has little practical use for my shooting style...

mb - have to disagree with You, as IMHO this lens is too slow for photojournalism

It is a good lens no doubt about that, ideal for photojournalism I think, but it is much more expensive than we expected … and I don’t think filters will add to light fail off though being f/4 it should not have any for the price

You're welcome guys. I too was very surprised by the vignetting. For an f4 lens I wouldn't have expected that much and for the price I would have expected more out of this lens. However this is only one opinion so it'll be interesting to know what others think once they get one.

I wonder how much worst the vignetting gets with filters attached. That would defeat the purpose of getting it over the 14-24 wouldn't it?

thanks niko for the finding, I'm a little bit disappointed by the barrel performance. certainly it's a good landscape lens, although I wouldn't use it as a reporter style lens

I guess it's great if you want a wide lens for landscapes, since you won't be shooting wide open anyway.

other than that, I guess it's alright.

Still can't afford it though.

And also- it's not exactly a small lens either. So...

ironic about the vignetting - HELLO, it's for the FX user, and this is what you give us, lol. . . I guess value of 17-35 2.8's went up in the used market!

Thanks for the link!

This is a great alternative to the 14-24. Bokeh is pretty good. Too bad about the vignetting though.

Funny, most people so far have said the 17-35mm F2.8 has better sharpness across the entire focal range, and that the 16-35mm is sharpest at F5.6, and not good for much else.

Here's a brief hands-on with the new 16-35 f4. It's a slightly better lens against the old 17-35 f2.8. Though for the price a used 17-35 is probably the better deal. However the 14-24 is the best by far. The center of the 16-35 is sharp but the corners fall off. There is also a lot of vignetting which is a bit surprising to me. So for the price, I'd still go with the 14-24 or 24-70 instead.

http://www.luminescentphoto.com/blog/2010/02/28/hands-on-review-16-35mm-f4-0-afs-vr-g-zoom-nikkor-lens/