The lens flare is definitely more than on the 24mm f/1.4G, but here is a sample with the sun in the corner of the D7000's frame.
Nikon 16-35 VR vs Tokina 16-28, available light(31 posts) (18 voices)
About the only thing one can say bad about the Nikkor 16-35mm f/4 VR is that it is not an f/2 or f/1.4..... Very sharp, very wide, a beautiful lens. Actually on full frame an excellent "walk around" as the 35mm end is a "normal lens".
The flare resistance doesn't look that good, about on par with the 20-35mm F2.8D I used to have. Contrast is still very good though. A wide lens like the 16-35mm, with that many lens elements is going to be a recipe for flare no matter what coatings they put on it. I'd be happy if Nikon made a modern compact wide angle zoom like the 20-35mm, but bigger is better seems to be the modern mindset.
I too am wavering between these two lenses. The Tokina has a $100 rebate and can be now had for $850-$100=$750, while the Nikon is $500 more at about $1,250.
Odd, the 16-35mm seems to be out of stock everywhere.
Actually on full frame an excellent "walk around" as the 35mm end is a "normal lens".
I would second that, strongly. Especially since that is what makes the wide-angle zooms so great: You always have a good "normal lens" on the camera, and then if you need to open up, you just twist the zoom ring. 16mm is quite a crazy angle already.
To someone like me, who has never had a VR lens, VR is a really cool feature, I must say, it does a great job. I really miss the step to a f/2.8 on the 16-35, not shutter-speed wise, but bokeh-wise. Then again, to me this is only relevant at 35mm focal length, so if I had the choice between the 16-28 Tokina and the 16-35 Nikon (which I just had), I'd go for the Nikon.
Still hoping on a 16-35 f/2.8 in the future, though...
Several reviews claim that the Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 is very comparable to the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8. It is also $500 cheaper than the Nikon 16-35mm f/4.
I find myself leaning towards the Tokina. I already have the Nikon 24-85mm VR, so I have 24mm on up covered with VR. I've always lusted after the holy trinity lenses, so the Tokina seems to be closer to one of them. Plus I hear the distortion is lower on the Tokina at wide angles and I do not do almost any post-processing (other than automatic in-camera corrections).
Any other thoughts to consider, oh wise Nikon comrades?
You must log in to post.