Nikon 16-35 f/4 + D800 - A few questions.

OVLOV

Hi, I'm a long time lurker and just signed up to ask a couple of questions about the 16-35. I currently have a D700, D800 , 50 1.4 & 24-70 2.8. I always use my 24-70 for everything. Obviously I don't have many lenses and this is because very time I but one I am unhappy with it. I originally bought the 14-24 when I was shooting with a D90 and returned it because I didn't like that combo. I shoot a lot of different subject matter and usually use the 24-70 however, I am going on a trip across America soon and would really like a wide angle zoom again (I used the sigma 10=20 on the D90). I did a similar trip a few years ago and managed ok with the 24-70 but I really feel I could benefit from a wide angle.

After a lot of research I ordered the 16-35 and got it yesterday. It came late in the day so I didn't get much chance to test it but was unimpressed by initial results (not very sharp). Today I took it for more of a test and sharpness does now seem ok with fresh eyes but can't help but feel there is excessive chromatic aberration at f/8 and on some images, the right hand side of the frame seems soft. I have also noticed that shooting vita VR in the day produces soft images ( I think that is supposed to happen? I've never had a VR lens before.).


I was wondering what your opinions are on these samples: ( take no notice of the subject matter).


http://testimagesupload.tumblr.com ( I don't know of any easier way of uploading images?)

Thanks!

haroldp

over 1/1000 sec. shutter speed (some say 1/500) turn VR off.

... H

Ironheart

The things you are seeing are evident in the MTF. Get the 14-24 if you want better edge performance and lower CA.
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/zoom/widezoom/af-s_nikkor16-35mmf_4d_ed_vr/index.htm
Also have you fine-tuned the focus yet?

OVLOV

The things you are seeing are evident in the MTF. Get the 14-24 if you want better edge performance and lower CA.
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/zoom/widezoom/af-s_nikkor16-35mmf_4d_ed_vr/index.htm
Also have you fine-tuned the focus yet?

No, I've never used that function before. I did consider the 14-24 but I use an ND110 an awful lot. It was a real toss up. On one hand I use the ND, on the other I also enjoy astrophotography so while the 16-35 is better in the day for me the 14-24 will be better at night. There is also the price difference.

many of the reviews I read said the 16-35 was second only to the 14-24 and not by much. The biggest gripe with most was the distortion but that is fixable in lightroom, I had no idea about the CA at all. I'm also really concerned about the softness on the right hand side.

sevencrossing

I have the 16 -35 like all the ultra wide zooms it is not as sharp as say the 24mm f 1.4 but if you want something ultra wide, you will have a accept some loss of IQ I don't think you will notice a big improvement with 14- 24

OVLOV

I have the 16 -35 like all the ultra wide zooms it is not as sharp as say the 24mm f 1.4 but if you want something ultra wide, you will have a accept some loss of IQ I don't think you will notice a big improvement with 14- 24

What about the CA? is it normal to have it so pronounced at f/8?

sevencrossing

not that I have noticed but i always lens profile correct in LR on import

haroldp

If the problem is on one side, you may have a de-centering issue, Nikon should fix this.

... H

PB_PM

Another 16-35mm F4 owner, never been disappointed with the result on the D800. I was kind of scared to get it last year, since many people were saying it was a terrible lens on the D700, let alone the D800. Then I actually bought the lens, shot with it on a photo vacation and have no regrets whatsoever. Then again I don't shoot it wide open, since I use it for landscapes and like.

Msmoto

Great lens on the D4, have not used it on my D800E as of yet, but will have to try it out. The only issue is some barrel distortion, easily corrected in post. Very sharp lens IMO.

OVLOV

Thank you all for your replies. I think this might be a bad copy, these is smearing all over the place, not just in the corners or extreme corners. I'm going to return it and try one from another place which hopefully has another batch. Looking at the serial number, this looks like it was an early one, despite it being bought a couple of days ago new.

moreorless

UWA's generally seem more prone to having more poor copies. My experience that seems to match most reviews is that performance from 16-28mm is very good bar the extreme corners at 16mm, over 28mm performance starts to drop off and by 35mm is only okish from the mid frame outwards.

Not really a problem for me as I'd have been fine with the lens as a 16-28mm VR, the 35mm setting tends to be something I use as an emergency people shooting lens.

WestEndBoy

With a store with a regular retail location, I try and buy stuff from a retailer that does not have the item in stock forcing them to order it direct from Nikon. When people have been "trying it out", I consider it used.

I am not saying that this is the problem, but perhaps someone dropped it and knocked something out of alignment.

OVLOV

With a store with a regular retail location, I try and buy stuff from a retailer that does not have the item in stock forcing them to order it direct from Nikon. When people have been "trying it out", I consider it used.

I am not saying that this is the problem, but perhaps someone dropped it and knocked something out of alignment.

Yeah, I know what your saying. This one was from Amazon and there was some mysterious delay in it's dispatch. I paid for Next day delivery and it still hadn't shipped the day it was supposed to arrive. I've sent it back and an going to try another store. The problem here in England is that there are no real camera stores so it has to be ordered online.

I did notice a few odd marks on the exterior of the box and an quite sure the serial number was low. If they number them like camera bodies this was in the low 1000s.

I don't have ridiculous expectations in the lens but after looking at the images more closely this one was definitely duff. I also ran tests with the VR and the shots with the VR on were soft while VR off was sharper.

Pistnbroke

used the 10-20 sigma on a D7100 and now have the sigma 17-35 on my D800which is a pile of crap in the heirarky of lenses compared to your nikon version...and it will remain crap unles you shoot at +9 if you are a jpeg man..

My sigma 17-35 is now far better than the old sigma 10-20 but you must go +9 in the sharpness ...

OVLOV

I have been doing more research and considering my options. I've been looking the the new 18-35 3.5-4.5 and it looks like a decent performer but is obviously not a pro lens. Does anyone have any opinions on it and it's quality? I'll mostly be using it for landscapes.

WestEndBoy

Look at my primes. With the 20 and 28, you will get better image quality with most of your range covered for what I imagine is a similar price. They are also available in auto-focus.