Nikon 18-35mm f3.5-4.5G AF-S ED vs Nikon 16-35mm f4 G AF-S ED VR

kiekiekiekie Posts: 9Member
edited June 2014 in Nikon DSLR cameras
So I am going to build my lens up and then buy a d610. the lens will be use mainly used for landscape. I will be getting a 50mm 1.4. or 1.8 not to sure about that one yet. I will also be buying a 85mm 1.8




  • PhotobugPhotobug Posts: 5,751Member
    My vote is the 16-35mm F4. Don't own one but check out the comments on here. Just run a search on this lens and you will have some reading to do.
    D750 & D7100 | 24-70 F2.8 G AF-S ED, 70-200 F2.8 AF VR, TC-14E III, TC-1.7EII, 35 F2 AF D, 50mm F1.8G, 105mm G AF-S VR | Backup & Wife's Gear: D5500 & Sony HX50V | 18-140 AF-S ED VR DX, 55-300 AF-S G VR DX |
    |SB-800, Amaran Halo LED Ring light | MB-D16 grip| Gitzo GT3541 + RRS BH-55LR, Gitzo GM2942 + Sirui L-10 | RRS gear | Lowepro, ThinkTank, & Hoodman gear | BosStrap | Vello Freewave Plus wireless Remote, Leica Lens Cleaning Cloth |
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,493Member
    edited June 2014
    The 16-35mm F4 VR is great for both hand held and tripod shooting throughout the day. Even as light starts to drop off in the evening, you can still get great images at lower ISO sensitivities, because the VR enables you to use crazy slow shutter speeds.

    16mm, F10, ISO100, 1/25s hand held with VR | Large Version

    The 18-35mm F3.5-4.5G would be fine for day light use hand held, and use on a tripod in the evening. Where the lens would suffer is if you want to use it in lower light conditions hand held.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • adsads Posts: 93Member
    I've shot a fair bit with both. The 18-35 is a touch sharper at 35mm, at 18mm they are pretty much identical in terms of image quality.

    The differences really are 16-35 has VR (so you can use slower shutter speeds) and a wider angle, 18-35 is lighter (less durable maybe?) and quite a bit cheaper. The 16-35 also has nano coating but I couldn't see a real world difference in terms of flare, micro contrast or colour in the shots I took.

    The extra 2mm at the wide end doesn't sound like much on paper, but the difference in perspective is more noticeable than any of the other differences IMO. Depends on your style whether you'd use that extra perspective or not.
  • PistnbrokePistnbroke Posts: 2,410Member
    edited June 2014
    I am using the old D model Sigma 17-35 and have no problems with sharpness the price its great value.
    The one I have is actually made from two with fungus and one with a scratchced element !!! Just the best bits of course....Even hogan had one for a couple of years.....
    Post edited by Pistnbroke on
  • ptrmckyptrmcky Posts: 44Member
    I was considering buying the 16-35 f4 for super wide stuff, then I realised my Tokina 11-16 f2.8 works on my D800 at 16mm. I'm limited to using it at 16mm, but it's lovely and sharp and I'd rather use it than paying loads for a slower 16-35. If you have upgraded from DX and owned an ultra wide for it, you could give it a go. Might suit your needs just fine and save money for another lens.

Sign In or Register to comment.