Review of Nikon 16-35 f/4: All's perfect except the abysmal sharpness Show Overall I found the 16-35 to be an average lens, but not one which I believe warrants the price that Nikon has afforded it. This review will be based on my 2nd-hand copy which I bought from MPB in "Good" condition, and have since returned. The lens was in perfect physical condition aside from a tiny scratch on the front element which removed a bit of the surface coating. In terms of weight, it's definitely got some heft, likely from the VR. The 18-35 is light, and the Tammy 17-35 is also light. The heft certainly comes from the VR, which honestly works great. You will certainly feel it after hiking all day if you keep it on a PD clip. In terms of colour rendition, again fantastic. Flaring? Barely noticeable. I have to admit, though, the stars you get at higher apertures are awful. More aperture blades is the trend and personally I miss sunstars. Now, handling and AF. The focus ring is not smooth. It's as grainy as it gets, The zoom ring is smooth, however the resistance is nonlinear. The front element moves in/out as you zoom in/out, being recessed the most somewhere around 22-24mm, with the most resistance in the zoom ring around this point. The AF is fast and snappy, but makes a crisp sound as it works, definitely not a bad one though. It's ostensibly weather sealed, too, and the front element resists smudging from your oily thumbs while out in the sun. So far so good, right? Well, here's where my opinion on the lens dropped from a thick gruff "ideal" to "satisfactory but not worth it's cost." The sharpness. Boy oh boy. I don't know if I got a bad copy, but honestly I was expecting more. After using a Tamron 17-35 for a while (having been reliant on a 14/2.8 Samyang before that, which saw limited use to be honest) I had some expectations to beat. The Tammy is around £430 new (Sammy non-AF about half that amount.) I expected sharpness at least equal to the Tamron. Wide open, the 16-35 will not produce crisp images. No matter the focal length (yes, in my case even around the 24mm sweet-spot that others have reported, I didn't have great sharpness.) I will admit, around that sweet-spot it's usable, but I wasn't looking for "usable," I was looking for "comparable" to that 17-35 Tamron. That same Tammy can produce reasonable sharp images, even wide open at f/2.8@17mm and f/4@35mm. 28-300 Left, 16-35 Right. Both f/4 at 35mm 28-300 Left, 16-35 Right. Both f/8 at 35mm I don't have the Tamron anymore to give reasonable comparisons (and my comparisons are by no means scientific, mind you; also the lens has since been passed on) but I do have my 28-300, of which the lower limit is the upper limit of the 16-35. Frankly, the 28-300 (not known for its sharpness, but frankly I find it perfect) knocks the 16-35 out at f/4, and even at f/8 the 16-35 hasn't cleaned up enough to overtake it. Around f/13 they're roughly equal, but past that point diffraction is going to start creeping in anyway, so what's the point? Also, I know that the 28-300 starts at f/3.5, so skipping to f/4 is a bit of a cheat. Nonetheless, I'm just making the point that this 16-35 is not sharp. I also did this for 28mm, since that's the lower limit of the 28-300, and it still beat out the 16-35 massively. Anyhow, the 16-35 will produce usable images if you stop it down all the way to f/8 and beyond, and if you're doing landscape you'll already likely be doing that, and my harsh rating may be unwarranted for you since you can always just stop down and it does indeed produce sharp images if you do. But I wanted to replace my 17-35 Tammy, having the crisp sharpness combined with VR without that nasty exterior focusing or that lack of focus override. Mechanically this lens is the dream, but the optics just didn't match my expectations. You can get usable images from this lens, you can do it all with this lens, but optically it just isn't worth the price tag. -- hide signature -- This is my signature. It is a nice signature. It just wasted your time! Nikon D5300 Nikon D780 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-P 18-55mm F3.5-5.6G VR Samyang 50mm F1.4 AS UMC +1 more  Wideangle zoom lens • Nikon F (FX) • 2182 Announced: Feb 9, 2010 JeffryZ • Senior Member • Posts: 2,611 Re: Review of Nikon 16-35 f/4: All's perfect except the abysmal sharpness 1 If you are on a crop sensor (I note you have both crop sensor and full frame bodies listed) and crave sharpness, you might check out the Sigma Art 18- 35mm f/1.8. About same size wise and zoom range. Pricewise, the Sigma is less. Won't help much on a full frame body though. Nikon D500 Fujifilm X-T4 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Art Fujifilm XF 50-140mm F2.8 +4 more OP Callicious • Junior Member • Posts: 27 Re: Review of Nikon 16-35 f/4: All's perfect except the abysmal sharpness In reply to JeffryZ • May 3, 2021 I'm currently using it on my FX D780, haven't tested it out on my old DX, though. I will check out the art though! Thanks! -- hide signature -- This is my signature. It is a nice signature. It just wasted your time! Nikon D5300 Nikon D780 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-P 18-55mm F3.5-5.6G VR Samyang 50mm F1.4 AS UMC +1 more Re: Review of Nikon 16-35 f/4: All's perfect except the abysmal sharpness 4 Callicious wrote: 28-300 Left, 16-35 Right. Both f/4 at 35mm 28-300 Left, 16-35 Right. Both f/8 at 35mm With varying framing and substantial parts of each image unsuitable for reliable LiveView or "viewfinder" AF - it is not possible to deduce from these photos whether any issue was in front of the camera viewfinder. -- hide signature -- Leonard Shepherd In lots of ways good photography is much more about how equipment is used rather than anything else. Nikon Z9 Nikon Z8 Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm F2.8G ED Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4D ED-IF Nikon AF-S Teleconverter TC-17E II +18 more OP Callicious • Junior Member • Posts: 27 Re: Review of Nikon 16-35 f/4: All's perfect except the abysmal sharpness Hi; sorry I forgot to mention that these are rather extreme crops just about the same area. I had the camera fixed on a tripod and just switched the lenses out (the framing is virtually the same if not cropped, sorry ;-;) -- hide signature -- This is my signature. It is a nice signature. It just wasted your time! Nikon D5300 Nikon D780 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-P 18-55mm F3.5-5.6G VR Samyang 50mm F1.4 AS UMC +1 more Re: Review of Nikon 16-35 f/4: All's perfect except the abysmal sharpness 2 Callicious wrote: Hi; sorry I forgot to mention that these are rather extreme crops just about the same area. I had the camera fixed on a tripod and just switched the lenses out (the framing is virtually the same if not cropped, sorry ;-;) Fair enough - though where was the AF point aimed? -- hide signature -- Leonard Shepherd In lots of ways good photography is much more about how equipment is used rather than anything else. Nikon Z9 Nikon Z8 Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm F2.8G ED Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4D ED-IF Nikon AF-S Teleconverter TC-17E II +18 more OP Callicious • Junior Member • Posts: 27 Re: Review of Nikon 16-35 f/4: All's perfect except the abysmal sharpness Shoot you're right, I have the images I put (not only cropped) but a point that isn't in focus! (I just arbitrarily picked it since it seemed to be the most notable example of how to compare the two >_>) Left (16-35 f/4 @35) Right (28-300 f/3.5-5.6 @ f/4 @ 35) cropped, focus at the little blue X Anyhow they're still not comparable. Wish I knew how to edit the original post so that I could upload the full uncropped images instead :_: -- hide signature -- This is my signature. It is a nice signature. It just wasted your time! Nikon D5300 Nikon D780 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-P 18-55mm F3.5-5.6G VR Samyang 50mm F1.4 AS UMC +1 more Alternates to Nikon 16-35 f/4 and poor examples 1 The photos are not good images to discern sharpness from. Most of the cropped areas are dark and there's nothing in the scene to judge sharp focus. Try testing on a brighter scene with objects that have fine, small details. If the 16-35 f/4 isn't sharp enough for you, try the Nikon 17-35 mm f/2.8 or the 14-24 mm f/2.8. They're both highly rated and great values. -- hide signature -- Dave - Be safe. Stay Healthy. Olympus C-8080 Wide Zoom Olympus E-330 Nikon D800E Nikon D850 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR +17 more OP Callicious • Junior Member • Posts: 27 Re: Alternates to Nikon 16-35 f/4 and poor examples 1 Sorry about the crops! I've added (well, in a reply) some that are actually about the point in focus with roughly equal framing. Anyhow, I just wish it were a bit better wide open. I intend to use the uwa for hiking/night photos while on the town. I considered the 14/24 (and have tested a copy that my lady owns) and honestly it's fantastic, but the weight... the 16-35 itself is a push on my ideal limit of it, too. Ideally I'm after the sharpness of the Tamron 17-35 wide open combined with VR, around the weight of the 16-35 (or less, ideally.) 16-35@35mm f/10 1/250 It's usable sharpness-wise if you stop down, it's just extremely questionable wide open in comparison to my previous uwa experiences. Using it indoors is something I'd hope for so having to stop down to f/10 and beyond for usable sharpness is a bit of a no. -- hide signature -- This is my signature. It is a nice signature. It just wasted your time! Nikon D5300 Nikon D780 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-P 18-55mm F3.5-5.6G VR Samyang 50mm F1.4 AS UMC +1 more Re: Review of Nikon 16-35 f/4: All's perfect except the abysmal sharpness Callicious wrote: Left (16-35 f/4 @35) Right (28-300 f/3.5-5.6 @ f/4 @ 35) cropped, focus at the little blue X I presume you have added a blue cross to each image - to show where the AF pointed is centred. If I am right the position is slightly different - enough to possibly cause a focus difference. The AF area seems to at about 60 degrees to the camera sensor and consists of small areas of darkness. This IMO this part of the image is some considerable way from an ideal subject for reliable AF. -- hide signature -- Leonard Shepherd In lots of ways good photography is much more about how equipment is used rather than anything else. Nikon Z9 Nikon Z8 Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm F2.8G ED Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4D ED-IF Nikon AF-S Teleconverter TC-17E II +18 more BasilG • Forum Pro • Posts: 10,896 Re: Alternates to Nikon 16-35 f/4 and poor examples Callicious wrote: Looks all really fishy to me. Both the lens and the tests. I would suggest dropping the indoor test, just too hard to say anything from that. Try this outdoor scene again, with a tripod, VR off, then use live view AF to focus on that monument in the foreground. This should be reasonably sharp by f/5.6 ot f/8. A lens that sharpens up only at f/10 is not very useful. I think the tests were not very well done, but at the same time, all the 16-35/4 images show some strange outlining and other aberrations that make me wonder if your lens is a dud. But to be sure, we'll need better tests. I think it's quite possible U got a bad copy. 7 I've had my 16-35 for a few years now... very happy with it. I'm somewhat of a sharpness freak, so I'm quite picky on lenses I decide to keep. But... there are a few REAL stinkers in the Nikon camp. That old 70-300 (non-VR) that's been out about 10 years... definitely a 'no-go'. Another one is that 55-300 DX-VR. Was never happy with anything I shot with it. If you checkout my 'list of gear' (all Nikon lenses)... THOSE are the winners in my book... including the 16-35. Here's Margo at the Select Models Photoshoot. Nikon D810 Nikon D750 Nikon D500 Nikon AF DX Fisheye-Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF +12 more Re: I think it's quite possible U got a bad copy. 1 GarysInSoCal wrote: I've had my 16-35 for a few years now... very happy with it. I'm somewhat of a sharpness freak, so I'm quite picky on lenses I decide to keep. But... there are a few REAL stinkers in the Nikon camp. That old 70-300 (non-VR) that's been out about 10 years... definitely a 'no-go'. It's a bit longer than that... The AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6D came out in 1998, and the cheaper AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6G in 2000. I agree that neither was a very good lens. Nikon Df Nikon Z fc Nikon Z9 Nikon Z8 Voigtlander 35mm F1.2 Nokton +26 more jebo1 • Contributing Member • Posts: 519 Re: Review of Nikon 16-35 f/4: All's perfect except the abysmal sharpness 1 Not quite on topic but I have recently purchased a brand new 28-300 and it is sharper than all the lenses I own. These include: 28 mm e series + 3,5 ai equal to 50mm 1.8 ais + 50 mm series + 50 mm f2.0 ai (only less contrast than the last one) sharper than 28-85 mm d sharper than 100mm eseries sharper than 135 mm f3.5 sharper than 75-150 eseries only less contrast And I do not consider these lenses as bad. So there surely will be sharper lenses but the 28-300 is for me at last a sharp lens. Nikon D200 Nikon D300 Nikon D700 Nikon D7200 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR +2 more OP Callicious • Junior Member • Posts: 27 Re: Alternates to Nikon 16-35 f/4 and poor examples In reply to BasilG • May 4, 2021 1 BasilG wrote:Callicious wrote: I'll saddle up my tripod & lens and head to the same spot the next day when weather permits & get some shots across the entire aperture range. I'll endeavour to upload the unclipped raws&jpegs, too. Thanks! . -- hide signature -- This is my signature. It is a nice signature. It just wasted your time! Nikon D5300 Nikon D780 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-P 18-55mm F3.5-5.6G VR Samyang 50mm F1.4 AS UMC +1 more jebo1 • Contributing Member • Posts: 519 Re: Alternates to Nikon 16-35 f/4 and poor examples In reply to BasilG • May 4, 2021 BasilG wrote:Callicious wrote: It's indeed extremely unsharp. I have not seen such an unsharp image long time ago. I would switch it to manual focus and set in to infinity or so and then check if you get a sharp picture. If so the autofocus is playing tricks. Nikon D200 Nikon D300 Nikon D700 Nikon D7200 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR +2 more OP Callicious • Junior Member • Posts: 27 Re: Review of Nikon 16-35 f/4: All's perfect except the abysmal sharpness In reply to jebo1 • May 4, 2021 Here're some uncropped ones from the local parking lot, since it looks like the weather won't be agreeing within the next few days and I really do have to worry about returning the lens if I do intend to return it... which frankly I do (although I'm really trying to convince myself otherwise...) 16mm f/4 16mm f/5.6 16mm f/8 16mm f/11 35mm f/4 35mm f/5.6 35mm f/8 35mm f/11 I've tried to manual focus to improve the focusing a bit but honestly I can't, also. The AF seems fine enough. See the GDrive link here if you want all the raw files (D780 + this copy of the 16-35, which may/may not be a bad one.) Anyhow, am I expecting too much from this lens? Is this typical? -- hide signature -- This is my signature. It is a nice signature. It just wasted your time! Nikon D5300 Nikon D780 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-P 18-55mm F3.5-5.6G VR Samyang 50mm F1.4 AS UMC +1 more BasilG • Forum Pro • Posts: 10,896 Re: Review of Nikon 16-35 f/4: All's perfect except the abysmal sharpness 1 Callicious wrote: How did you focus it? Magnified live view? Onto the building in the center of the frame? The AF seems fine enough. See the GDrive link hereif you want all the raw files (D780 + this copy of the 16-35, which may/may not be a bad one.) Anyhow, am I expecting too much from this lens? Is this typical? To me, 16 mm looks acceptable but 35 mm wide open looks bad, with nothing sharp. You either focused behind the building, or the lens isn't good. OP Callicious • Junior Member • Posts: 27 Re: Review of Nikon 16-35 f/4: All's perfect except the abysmal sharpness In reply to BasilG • May 4, 2021 Zoomed the live view right on in to the centre of the frame, which is virtually on the leftmost edge of the rightmost lowermost window in the image. I let the AF take care of it, though I did verify that the peaking agreed with it and I couldn't prove the focus whatsoever while trying to manually focus instead (hence letting the AF just work its magic, it didn't seem to be focusing badly.) -- hide signature -- This is my signature. It is a nice signature. It just wasted your time! Nikon D5300 Nikon D780 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR Nikon AF-P 18-55mm F3.5-5.6G VR Samyang 50mm F1.4 AS UMC +1 more jebo1 • Contributing Member • Posts: 519 Re: Review of Nikon 16-35 f/4: All's perfect except the abysmal sharpness 1 Definitely a bad lens or focussed wrongly really close by. The depth of field should be tremendous. It should always be sharp from f 5.6 on, certainly at 16 mm. Check for example flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/139371924@N02/51136018511/in/pool-nikon16-35mm/ or like this photo which I took with a very cheap canon ultrawide lens just to get the idea! Nikon D200 Nikon D300 Nikon D700 Nikon D7200 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR +2 more Keyboard shortcuts: FForum MMy threads Latest sample galleriesLatest in-depth reviewsThe Fujifilm X100VI is the sixth iteration of Fujifilm's classically-styled large sensor compact. A 40MP X-Trans sensor, in-body stabilization and 6.2K video are among the updates. The Nikon Zf is a 24MP full-frame mirrorless camera with classic looks that brings significant improvements to Nikon's mid-price cameras. We just shot a sample reel to get a better feel for its video features and have added our impressions to the review. This $250 electronic lens adapter is perfect for Nikon Z-mount curious Sony shooters — shhh, we won’t tell anyone. Sony updates the ZV-1, giving the vlog-centric compact camera a 18-50mm equivalent F1.8-4.0 lens that's now wide enough for less cramped selfie mode videos. OM Digital Solutions has updated its flagship high speed camera just two years after launch. The latest version includes more memory and some performance and handling tweaks. Latest buying guidesIf you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites. What's the best camera for travel? Good travel cameras should be small, versatile, and offer good image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for travel and recommended the best. 'What's the best mirrorless camera?' We're glad you asked. What’s the best camera for around $2000? This price point gives you access to some of the most all-round capable cameras available. Excellent image quality, powerful autofocus and great looking video are the least you can expect. We've picked the models that really stand out. Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. We case our eye over the options costing more than $2500 but less than $4000, to find the best all-rounder. Is Nikon 16 35 a good lens?That is awesome. Focal Length Versatility – The 16-35mm range is extremely versatile for event photography, travel or landscape photography. Whether you are a full frame or crop sensor Nikon user, this range is very helpful. Color & Contrast – As with all of my Nikon “G” series lenses the color and contrast is awesome. What is a 16Carl ZEISS 16-35mm Specs & Images Most of my images with this lens have been landscape and architecture, but you'll also find that I've used this lens for worship and events. I think it's a very well rounded wide angle, because of it's range. Is the Nikon 16 35 f4 weather sealed?It is a full frame G type lens featuring a metal barrel and weather sealing consistent with Nikon's professional series of lenses. What is the sharpest aperture for Canon 16 35?The Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 III is razor sharp between f/4 and f/11, and as expected apertures of f/16 and smaller start suffering from diffraction. The Canon 16-35mm f/4 IS becomes razor sharp between f/5.6 and f/8, with apertures of f/11 and smaller getting softer again due to diffraction. |
