16-35 f/4 vs. 70-200 f/4

gws4

Hey, I bought both of these lenses from B&H a few weeks back and I've found that my 70-200 is significantly sharper. I was wondering if anyone else has experienced this? is it normal? I know that the 70-200 is new and would make sense to be more sharp, but still. The 16-35 doesn't blow me away like the 70-200 does.

I'm shooting on a d5300 if that matters.

scoobysmak

I would say the 70-200 might be a touch sharper but nothing like what your describing. I do not know much about the D5300, are you able to calibrate lenses with it. Note if you can its only for one focal range on the zoom. If you calibrate it for 16mm then 35mm might be a bit off. I have heard some people have to send lenses off with the camera and Nikon will calibrate them but I have not done it, so for me just a rumor.

How are you using the 16-35, is VR on or are you using this on a tripod?

Any other details on how you used each lens.

spraynpray

My 70-200 blows me away too. Then there is the phenominal VR on it too. Wow.

DxO says a score of 16 on the 16-35 Vs 21 on the 70-200 both tested on the D5300. The 70-200 focal length will always be sharper than a complex wide angle in the same class (f4) I reckon. so your lens may be representative of that.

I share your disappointment and it is why I don't have that lens myself. Having said all that, I have seen some beautiful images taken with it (sevencrossing's Clifton Bridge shot in January for example). So perhaps sharpness is 'enough' if not 'super'?

sevencrossing

I have the 16 -35 and the 70 -200 f 2.8 and the 70 -200 is certainly sharper
As S&P says The 70-200 focal length will always be sharper than a complex wide angle in the same class
I do not think you find a better zoom
If you do not need to go as wide as 16mm and do not need the convenience of a zoom, you will have to buy a rage of primes
AF-S NIKKOR 20mm f/1.8G ED
AF-S NIKKOR 24mm f/1.4G ED
AF-S NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G ED

Parke1953

sevencrossing that's to funny. I think that's a murder of primes about $3500 but good advice.

haroldp

My 14-24/2.8 is as sharp as my tele zooms. Not as sharp as my 400/2.8, but neither is anything else.

... H

spraynpray

My 14-24/2.8 is as sharp as my tele zooms. Not as sharp as my 400/2.8, but neither is anything else.

... H

Harold: Did you see the bit "in the same class (f4)"?

funtagraph

What does the "f/4 class" mean? "less sharp"? Can't be. because the 70-200/4 rocks. I agree with @haroldp. the 14-24 is as "wow" as the 70-200/4, maybe even more.

spraynpray

F2.8 lenses are expensive, f4 are less so. F2.8 achieves a DxO score, f4 less so. It wouldn't make marketing sense for Nikon to make cheaper lenses of the same focal length 'better', although technically it wouldn't surprise me if it were the case that a slower lens could be made better than a faster lens.

funtagraph

If you compare the VR, the f/4 version is better than its elder f/2.8 colleague. Can't talk much about sharpness, but the advantage of the faster aperture is equalized, except you need a shallow DoF.

tganiats

My 70-200 is sharper than the my 16-35, but I am very happy with both. I think the "problem" is the 70-200 is insane while the 16-35 is "just" very good.

Addendum:
Sorry....my 70-200 is the f/2.8, not f/4

tcole1983

I can say it sounds about right. My 17-55 while pretty good isn't as sharp as my longer length lenses...especially my primes. I think @spraynpray first response sums it up.

kanuck

This does not surprise me at all considering DXO gave the 70-200mm VR a 29 for sharpness and the 16-35mm got a 19. The 70-200mm VR is the sharpest Nikkor available for a D800 body so I can only imagine the tack sharpness it would have on a cropped sensor D5300....

tganiats

NOTE: I corrected my post from Feb 17. Sorry. (I have the f/2.8, not f/4 70-200)