The only thing about the 16-35mm f/4 that really jumped out at me (I don't own one) is the horrendous barrel distortion at 16mm. Other than that, I haven't seen many complaints about it.

I do hope that Nikon can get the 24-120mm f/4 right. It will be a key player in the battle to win over users.

I know what you mean.. maybe tamron will update their 28-75 with VC soon... be waiting years for that one...

Have you looked into the 17-70 from sigma F2.8-F4 OS?

Now that this is more than just a rumor, I'm thinking I might want one. I've been wanting a lens with VR that covers this zoom range (well, 35-80ish) and my situation has changed (moved out of state) to where I'll be doing fewer paid gigs and will have trouble justifying a 24-70 2.8 purchase even if they do add VR in the near future as I suspect they will. If it's as sharp as the 18-105 DX I'm probably going to get one. Here's hoping...

some one should fix that typo in the title ...

I am curious about the new 24-120 F4.0 too.. could make a nice portrait lens on DX. i have high hopes for this lens as nikon has some new lens manufacturing tech since the 24-70/14-24

What I would really like is something like the 50-150 from sigma maybe a real 34-120 F2.8 DX VR!

Almost all reviews I have read regard the 16-35 VR higher than the 17-35 f2.8 so it can not be that bad. As for 24-120 lets wait and see how it performs before we judge it.

shivaswrath said:

I think the existing 16-35/4 is a little soft in corners, just a little, but at 5.6, pretty amazing all around. . .considering the size/price/VR, I think at ~$1100, it's a pretty good deal. . .

Unless you get a 17-35mm f2.8 off ebay (new condition) for $1000

if the new 24-120/f performs similar to the 16-35/4, it'll be awesome. .last 24-120 was a dud (hit or miss really), so fingers crossed. . .

I think the existing 16-35/4 is a little soft in corners, just a little, but at 5.6, pretty amazing all around. . .considering the size/price/VR, I think at ~$1100, it's a pretty good deal. . .

I realy dont think Nikon did a misstake whith the 16-35 f4. They are selling well. I hope the rumored 24-120 f4 can perform in the same ligue, it will look great on my ordered D700!

Welcome to the forum etihad.
I don't think I'd have sold the 24-70 until I had a chance to check out the 24-120. I don't think optics of 24-120 will be up to the standard of the 24-70. We'll have to wait and see.

I'v sold 24-70n last week for replacement with newly coming 24-120vr2/f4 ED N.
What shall I do?

I'm going to just wait to see what is released. I would love to see a good f/4 in the 24-120 range with VR. I have a love hate with the current 24-120 - to slow and not shallow enough DOF at the medium-long range and on my D300, not wide enough to make it a walk around lens. F/4 would help some for sure.

As for making sure the overlap of lens focal lengths, I could care less. I'll carry a 17mm 3.5, 35mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4, and 85mm 1.8 or a 12-24mm and 70-200mm or 70-300mm VR.

If I were to vote, I would love to see a 18-135mm F4 VR similar to Tokina's but faster.

nikon had 24-120vr before, and it was performing quite good on both ends, so really don't understand Your point.

Nikodoby, obviously a typo, should have been 24-120, perhaps a Freudian slip as I would much rather have seen a 35-105.

What's a 34-120? Never heard of it

Unfortunately it “is” a compromise as my 17-35mm 2.8 is better in every way except possibly the lack of Vr. It not only seems to be sharp the whole zoom range but is much sharper than most other lenses of that range (14-24mm is an exception) on f-stops other than 5.6, 7.1, and 8.
The problem is that the 16-35mm f4 isn’t a consumer priced lens. Nobody is going to find one at their local Best buy next to the D300s and D90. Probably the only reason they made this lens was to compete with canon….

All zoom lenses are a compromise in quality at some point(s) in their zoom range. If you want maximum image quality, use a fixed focal length lens. Zoom lenses will usually have a "sweet spot", a particular combination of focal length and aperture that may approach, or even exceed, the performance of a fixed focal length lens, but outside of that, the performance at other points in the zoom range is a compromise.

Why does Nikon make wide-range zooms when their performance is most often less than that of narrower range zooms? Because that what consumers want. In a perfect world, a consumer would like a 10-300mm f/1.2 that is 3" long, weighs 8 oz., costs $199 and is tack sharp throughout the range. Obviously this is not possible, so Nikon, along with other manufacturers, give the consumer the best compromise that current technology allows for.

It is now generally accepted that the performance of the 16-35 f4 falls off between 16-18 and 32-35 mm. If it had been produced as an 18-35 it would probably have had excellent performance across the full focal length range and been smaller and lighter. It seems that Nikon went to 16mm so that the lens would have a wider minimum focal length than the Canon 17-40, and therefore the 16-35 suffers the same problems as that lens in having a poorer performance at each end of the focal length range.

Now with the rumoured announcement of the 24-120 f4, are Nikon about to give us another lens with a noticeably worse performance at both ends of the zoom range, and also bigger & heavier than it need to be, than if they produced a 28-105 or 28-120 with superb optical quality across its full focal length range? Also why bother to have such a wide overlap between the 16-35 and 24-120, surely this will mean that most buyers will settle for one or the other at the wide end so they will only sell one lens instead of two

It seems to me that with the new fixed f4 range Nikon have moved to a 'never mind the quality, feel the width' policy instead of a 'the width is a bit narrow, but look at the quality' policy. What are others thoughts on this?