Nikon's 16-35mm F4 VR lens is the first true wide zoom to sport optical stabilization, but thankfully doesn't compromise imaging performance to do so. It's very well built with dust and moisture sealing, and has very effective autofocus and stabilization systems. The one outstanding flaw is huge barrel distortion at wide angle on FX, although this can be corrected in software if necessary. As long as you can live with the distortion the 16-35mm is an excellent choice, particularly for full frame users.
Nikon AF-S 16-35mm f/4 G ED VR Lens
Already own this?
This item is in your gearlist!
“ The 16-35mm F4 VR is an excellent alternative to the 14-24mm F2.8 as a lighter, more affordable ultra-wide angle zoom for Nikon's full frame DSLRs.”
- 16-35mm focal length
- 24-52.5mm equivalent focal length on DX cameras
- F4.0 constant maximum aperture; F22 minimum
- Ultrasonic-type AF motor with full-time manual focusing
- Image stabilization, vibration reduction (VR II) up to 4 stops
- 77mm filters
- 0.28m/11.02" minimum focus
- Nikon F mount for FX and DX DSLRs
|Lens type||Zoom lens|
|Max Format size||35mm FF|
|Focal length||16–35 mm|
|Image stabilisation||Yes (vibration reduction (VR II) up to 4 stops)|
|Lens mount||Nikon F (FX)|
|Number of diaphragm blades||9|
|Aperture notes||rounded blades|
|Special elements / coatings||two ED glass elements, three aspherical lenses and Nano Crystal Coat|
|Minimum focus||0.28 m (11.02″)|
|Full time manual||Yes|
|Weight||685 g (1.51 lb)|
|Diameter||83 mm (3.25″)|
|Length||125 mm (4.92″)|
|Materials||Plastic barrel with magnesium alloy sub-structure, metal mount|
|Zoom method||Rotary (internal)|
|Filter thread||77 mm|
|Hood product code||HB-23|
Scoring is relative only to the other lenses in the same category at the time of review.
|Ergonomics and Handling||
Nikon's 16-35mm F4 VR is the first true wide zoom to sport optical stabilization, but thankfully doesn't compromise imaging performance to do so. It's an excellent choice particularly for full frame users, but you do need to be aware of its pronounced barrel distortion at wide angle.
Users of full frame Nikon SLRs looking for a wideangle zoom that's less expensive and more portable than the existing F2.8 options.
Not So Good For
Architecture and interiors (due to distortion at 16mm), DX users (due to limited range)
Long Term Keeper
When this lens came out, the usual nay-Sayers and try-em-outers were making all kinds of negative mini-reviews online and in forums. I was concerned because this focal range is about perfect for me. I needed a superwide for my D700. Further, 24 was my pivotal hot spot for wide angle on landscape images. Had I bought the 14-24 I'd have had my super-wide, but would have always been fighting that long side. If I needed a little longer, I'd have to swap lenses. If I then wanted slightly less, ...
The Nikon 16-35mm F4
Mostly used on DX and film cameras, it's one of the sharpest lenses I've ever tried. If you stop down just a little (like F5.6), it,s already razor sharp corner to corner. The autofocus is REALLY fast and accurate, cannot even hear it, when focuses. The filter thread is very handy, when you like polarizer effects on wide angle. The only disadvantage for me is the big size, bigger and heavier than the usual wide angle lenses, but that's just a small discomfort to take for the superb quality. I ...
Love this lens
I added this to D800 kit a few months ago and did a bit of architecture (interior and exterior) shooting in Provence - yes it does "suffer" from the usual distortion at 16mm but what wide-angle lens doesn't - I have also aquired DxO Pro Optic 8 software and run the images through it - it automaticallly corrects for camera/lens combinations. I would heartily recommend adding the DxO package to your purchase of this lens.
Am I picking the right lenses for the D800?
Yet another one of these threads, I'd like some opinions :) I'm planning on moving from DX to FF and am trying to figure out my lens strategy. I'm in absolutely no way a pro, and I never will be; I photograph whatever ends up in front of my kit, be it landscape, portrait (in the sense of facial pics of family), general travel photography, macro etc. I even occasionally try to photograph my nephews ice hockey attempts (indoor sport). So, my kit right now: D7000, Nikon 35 f1.8, Nikon 50 f1.8, Nikon 105 f2.8 Micro , Nikon 70-200 f4 and Nikon 18-300 f3.5-5.6. I am getting the D800 and these are my thoughts: Sell the 35 f1.8 DX and the 18-300 (seeming it could be used in crop mode but really not the quality lens I'd put on the D800?). Thus keeping 50, 105 and 70-200. To this, I'd love to add something wide and I'm thinking 14-24 f2.8 or 16-35 f4. I'm the type that read review after review after review (not always a good thing once passing the confusion level of reading to many peoples ...
The 14-24 is the mother of all wide angle zooms (so great that Canon shooters buy it and put with using MF). That said, there are some pretty usability issues--it's super heavy, requires an expensive filter kit to use filters, bulbous, prone to flare, etc). The 16-35 is pretty darn good and accepts pretty standard 77mm filters for less cost. Nice constrast and color. The center is extremely sharp, but the borders fall apart somewhat--though if you stop down you're probably fine, esp. when you move toward 20mm. Lots of distortion at 16mm. Not so good for architecture but fine for landscape. In your case, I think I'd go for the 16-35. The 24-70 is a nice lens. You already have several of the focal lengths covered in primes (esp. if you add the 16-35). I'd get it if you're shooting events or something where you miss shots if you can't jump from wide to short tele very quickly. I like mine for landscape here in Alaska as I'm often shooting in bad conditions. My fingers have bad ... Continue Reading
The 14-24 is a fine lens, but not without it's flaws. Optically, the main one is that it flares easily, in spite of having nano coating. If you shoot it outdoors, you'll be well advised to be sure the front of the lens is shaded. A lot of people say their 14-24 is the best lens they rarely use. I guess I'm with them. It's so wide on FX that it's not something you typically walk around with, and it's so big you have some issues packing it. So it's often passed over instead of packed. The 16-35vr sounds a lot more usable day to day. Since you have the 70-200f4 (a great lens, from what I've heard), you might as well decide if you want to be an F2.8-zoomer or a F4-zoomer. (14-24, 24-70, 70-200 or 16-35, 24-120, 70-200). Can't go too wrong either way there. I've got the F2.8 zooms, and while I love them, I also wonder if I'm going to take them all on a 3-week trip to Europe in the fall, and if so, how to carry them. The F4 set would all go without question. Continue Reading
The 14-24mm is a super lens but only if you need its properties. I use it for nightscapes and for that is the undisputed heavy weight champion. But for walkaround I find it too wide and has curvature so it needs to be used in a way that creates a great image. It is large and heavy. So I would not consider it a travel lens. As far as 16-35 goes, never used it but it sounds appealling. I think personally I would prefer the Sigma 35mm F1.4 as its the sharpest lens DXO have ever tested and it gets a lot of rave reviews. Its cheaper as well than the 16-35. It depends on how often you think you would shoot at 16mm. If I wanted a wider photo I would do a panorama as I prefer those to wide angle lens shots anyway. So a high quality useable focal length like 35mm would be handy for travel, light, takes filters, super sharp, little distortion and could make a super high quality handheld panorama (simply swivel on your hips and take 3 photos, take a photo of your hand before and after the ... Continue Reading
16 - 35 f4 vignetting with screw on filters
Hello all, is there anybody with some experience using this lens with screw on filters? In which cases vignetting can occur? I'm considering to buy this lens to avoid huge filter systems during trips. Any concern, considerations, or suggestions? Comments are welcome! Thank you in advance!
Ahduhn wrote: Guidenet wrote: Ahduhn wrote: xuser wrote: I would depend on how thick it is. I have the regular (cheap) filter and it is 7 mm thick. Filters 5 mm thick do not produce any vignetting. Also, vignetting is more noticeable at close focus, < 3m. Focusing at infinite is almost gone. I do not think it will be an issue for landscaping. Sorry, Just to avoid misunderstadning...the thin one (5mm) does vignette at close focus? or just the thick one (7mm)? Thank you I'm sure he's talking the thicker one, not the thinner. Personally, I think you're over-concerned. For starters, what filters are you plannig on poking on that lens? You have to be very careful with a polarizer because it's pretty much too wide angle for sky shots. Polarizers only polarize sunlight at 90 degrees and at 16mm, you're taking in so much, you're likely to get very uneven skys. Now reflections of foilage is a different consideration. A single ND filter of the right choice is also not going to cause any ... Continue Reading
Just to confirm, with a filter 4 mm thick you should not get any vignetting at 16 mm regardless of the focus distance. The 5 mm I have does not produce any. Continue Reading
Which one to buy: AF-S 16-35mm f/4 G ED VR or the new 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 G
Hi all, I have a new D800. I want to buy a ultra wide angle lens. Can you help me decide between AF-S 16-35mm f/4 G ED VR and the new 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 G? I want to use filters as well since I do mostly landscape photos - this is why 14-24 is not an option. I like wide angles so the 2mm difference between 18-35 and 16-35 is quite some :) I read some post on forums and on cameraegg that 18-35 is better than 16-35. Hmm...confused. Any thoughts and advices appreciated. Thanks
Most of what you hear from comparisons that say the 16-35 is better is due to either sample variation or those trying to rationalize their purchases for a lens that provides, at best, similar performance. Here are the facts: In favor of 16-35 * provides a wider FOV * provides VR * professional build In favor of 18-35mm * compact and lightweight * much less expensive * more consistent edge-to-edge performance (sharpness) In terms of IQ, most differences in sharpness can be attributed to sample differences. For example, this review, Photographylife , was conducted by a blogger who is loathed to praise any "cheap lens." They repeated their test because they were so surprised at the outcome. In general, the 18-35 was typically a little sharper than the 16-35 in the center, and a bit more sharper in the corners. However, the test performances was more alike than different. I doubt that there would be many comparisons which would produce noticeable differences between the tested lenses. ... Continue Reading
Hmm, not sure what to make of your reply. Evidence is evidence, whether first hand or second hand. There is nothing to suggest that secondary data sources are less reliable than primary data sources. Let me see, do I give more weight to your word--a person who has posted on DPReview 145 times--or to reputable reviewers who have examined and tested dozens of lenses each? To me, that's an easy call. However, the point of my post was not call your competency as a reviewer into question. I have little reason to suspect that your 16-35mm did not perform better than the 18-35mm you test. My point--which is not inconsistent with your comparison--is that these two lenses are so close in IQ, that any noticeable differences are almost certainly due to sample variation. This is better explained here Canon 24-70 sample variation. If you don't have time to read the entire article, scroll down to the middle of the article where Roger Cicala compares the resolution of the 24-70 to the 70-200 (two ... Continue Reading
Probably mainly because it's a much older design with no SWM AF motor in the lens. It definitely has its fans though, and you can find many a heated debate about it in the archive of this forum. You can't realistically shoot the 17-35 at f/2.8 unless you're only wanting a sharp area at the centre of the frame. The rest of the frame will be very soft, partly due to aberrations and partly due to field curvature. Most wide zooms have a very curved field of focus. You need to stop down to at least f/4, better f/5.6 at which point the aperture advantage is gone. The 17-35 also lacks the Nano crystal coat, which believe it or not is not just marketing bumpf but really does make a difference to the colours and global contrast of the lens. The 16-35 is always in short supply. The other day at my local store the rep mentioned they have 80 backorders and only receive stock of 20 per month. That might be one reason. Continue Reading
Have your own question?
"No registration or "warranty" card is included or needed with a Nikon D-SLR or Coolpix camera. Keep your original, dated proof of purchase from the Authorized Nikon Inc. dealer in case warranty service is ever needed. These products do include either a mail-in form or a paper with a web link to our registration page:
It's advised to register your product with Nikon so that we can send you information about future updates or service issues that may arise.
Nikkor lenses come with a standard one year warranty and Nikon Inc. lenses sold by authorized Nikon Inc. dealers will have a Nikon Inc. Five Year Extension. To register for the five year extension, one copy of the included form must be mailed in as indicated. Keep the Customer copy of the form as well as the original proof of purchase (sales receipt)."
DPReview GearShop is an authorized Nikon dealer in the United States.