Anyone got their hands on the 16-35 f4 yet? (nt)

[gohaj]

distortion seems serious at 16mm. how abt 24mm?

 

[David Lee]

Thank you for the photos

 

[Jed]

Pretty sharp in the center at wide open and to excellent when stopped down. 16-35 is sharper at f4 in the corners and horizontal edge compared with the 17-35 f2.8 and bearing lesser CA.

Hmm, so the lens is sharp wide open and excellent when stopped down... and you've judged this on a d700?

What happens if it's used on a D3x then? Does this drop to not very sharp wide open and sharp stopped down?

How many people are now going to run around thinking the 16-35 is suuuuuper sharp?

 

[Numnumball]

distortion seems serious at 16mm. how abt 24mm?

Will do a test today and revert

 

[Numnumball]

Hmm, so the lens is sharp wide open and excellent when stopped down... and you've judged this on a d700?

What happens if it's used on a D3x then? Does this drop to not very sharp wide open and sharp stopped down?

How many people are now going to run around thinking the 16-35 is suuuuuper sharp?

Yup JED, well i only own a D700, logically speaking, D3X being superior should yield similar or even better results.. But i not in the position to speculate as i dun own a D3X, maybe D3X owners with 16-35VRF4 might be better to comment..

Cheers matey

 

[Jed]

Yup JED, well i only own a D700, logically speaking, D3X being superior should yield similar or even better results..

The point I am making is, a D700 is hardly useful for testing a lens' sharpness or lack thereof. It is less demanding on sensors than, say, a camera that was introduced way back in 2002.

You can draw conclusions about geometric distortion, light falloff, and things along those lines, but to really test sharpness you need a relatively high resolution camera.

Either that, or the lens really doesn't resolve well at all.

And on the contrary to what you've just stated above, the D3x should yield worse results not better as it is more taxing on a lens' resolving power than the D700 is.

 

[Numnumball]

Some more pics with regards to this lens performance in dim light conditions (all taken around 6pm when the sky begin to darken)

Lowlight performance with this lens:

#5 - Settings : ISO 200, F4, 1/13, +0.3EV at 16mm

#6 - Settings : ISO 500, F4, 1/30,+0.3EV at 22mm

#7 - Settings : ISO 360, F4, 1/30 at 18mm - Bokeh shot, u judge for urself..

Will post more shots in High ISO settings soon... HTH guys.. Over n out for today...

 

[David Lee]

The point I am making is, a D700 is hardly useful for testing a lens' sharpness or lack thereof. It is less demanding on sensors than, say, a camera that was introduced way back in 2002.

You can draw conclusions about geometric distortion, light falloff, and things along those lines, but to really test sharpness you need a relatively high resolution camera.

Either that, or the lens really doesn't resolve well at all.

And on the contrary to what you've just stated above, the D3x should yield worse results not better as it is more taxing on a lens' resolving power than the D700 is.

Hi, most of us here are not PRO and do not own a D3X, the testing stated tested with a D700 so we draw conclusion base on the lens with a D700 or D3s which is very useful rather than not receiving any testing feed back at all..

Can anyone help by posting some test result from D3X since D700 is hardly useful in testing a lens ?

As for me, i am quite happy with the result with this lens on a D700 as i will be sticking with D700 for the next 2-3 years at least

 

[Jed]

Hi, most of us here are not PRO and do not own a D3X, the testing stated tested with a D700 so we draw conclusion base on the lens with a D700 or D3s which is very useful rather than not receiving any testing feed back at all..

Can anyone help by posting some test result from D3X since D700 is hardly useful in testing a lens ?

As for me, i am quite happy with the result with this lens on a D700 as i will be sticking with D700 for the next 2-3 years at least

The point I am making is, most lenses are plenty sharp enough on a sensor with the resolution of a D700, which is outresolved in the middle of the frame by an 8 year old D100.

It has nothing to do with pro, and whether you own a D3x or not. It's pretty much a given that almost any lens introduced today will be "sharp wide open and excellent stopped down" on a camera that really does not push the boundaries of lens performance.

It's strange that in this situation people are happy to go ooooh it's good enough, yet when someone compares lens A to lens B then someone will come up with some reason as to why one of the lenses is better, even if you need a microscope to see the difference. It's even worse if lens A and lens B belonged to brand A and brand B.

I'd also bet if a 16-35/4 version II was released tomorrow suddenly the 16-35/4 version I wouldn't be good enough to a large number of users even though they're still using the same camera.

In essence you're saying, this is good enough for you. I'm glad you think that because you're right.

I'd also wager a 17-35/2.8 is good enough, and an 18-35/3.5-4.5, and other lenses of that ilk.

I guess my point is, 99% of the stuff out there is plenty good enough for 99% of the users on this forum. And that is possibly being very conservative in my estimate. So it doesn't go against your viewpoint at all.

And before you get any ideas, I am comfortably within that 99% myself.

Aside from that I'm merely bringing up a point about testing methodology and not any sort of claim about whether a lens is good enough for pro use, whether you're a pro, whether you need a D3x to be a pro, or whatever.

 

[David Lee]

The point I am making is, most lenses are plenty sharp enough on a sensor with the resolution of a D700, which is outresolved in the middle of the frame by an 8 year old D100.

It has nothing to do with pro, and whether you own a D3x or not. It's pretty much a given that almost any lens introduced today will be "sharp wide open and excellent stopped down" on a camera that really does not push the boundaries of lens performance.

It's strange that in this situation people are happy to go ooooh it's good enough, yet when someone compares lens A to lens B then someone will come up with some reason as to why one of the lenses is better, even if you need a microscope to see the difference. It's even worse if lens A and lens B belonged to brand A and brand B.

I'd also bet if a 16-35/4 version II was released tomorrow suddenly the 16-35/4 version I wouldn't be good enough to a large number of users even though they're still using the same camera.

In essence you're saying, this is good enough for you. I'm glad you think that because you're right.

I'd also wager a 17-35/2.8 is good enough, and an 18-35/3.5-4.5, and other lenses of that ilk.

I guess my point is, 99% of the stuff out there is plenty good enough for 99% of the users on this forum. And that is possibly being very conservative in my estimate. So it doesn't go against your viewpoint at all.

And before you get any ideas, I am comfortably within that 99% myself.

Aside from that I'm merely bringing up a point about testing methodology and not any sort of claim about whether a lens is good enough for pro use, whether you're a pro, whether you need a D3x to be a pro, or whatever.

Noted your points. My point is, someone here is willing to take his time share his experience and photographs here to show how the new lens work with a D700, it is better than nothing at all. a lens at such a price tag cost an averge person 1 month's pay, we should be glad to see the end result before deciding is it worth to part with our hard earn money or not.

Don't feel strange when you find people said that oooh it good enough and than start comparing A and B again, this is part of human (most but not all) or i should say its Singaporean.

80% of buyer for this lens will use it with a sensor not bigger than 12MP, the reviews just seems fine as it is showing sharpness at edge, bokeh and its low light performance and how someone who use 17-35 comment on this 16-35.

Anyway different countries have different cultures, different occupation different ages see things differently. i guess there is nothing wrong with anything and anyone.

Finally, you are bringing out a point of how lenses are to be tested, i am bringing out a point that we are happy that someone here is willing to share using his D700, its better than NONE. As for PRO, my point is a price tag of D3X is not what we can afford and the PROs are the one who will likely buy them. Who cares PRO use what camera and lenses

 

[Benji77]

1. we should be glad to see the end result before deciding is it worth to part with our hard earn money or not.

2. this is part of human (most but not all) or i should say its Singaporean.

3. 80% of buyer for this lens will use it with a sensor not bigger than 12MP

4. Anyway different countries have different cultures, different occupation different ages see things differently. i guess there is nothing wrong with anything and anyone.

5. my point is a price tag of D3X is not what we can afford and the PROs are the one who will likely buy them. Who cares PRO use what camera and lenses

Sorry but I have to edit and number your post as it would be easier to summarise...and for me to dissect.

1. Since we trust Nikon so much, I dont see the real need to see results of this Professional Grade lens before purchase.

2. It is Singaporean. We have to admit that we are truely a technologically crazed, and 'gotta get the best' kind of people. KIASU we call it.

3. Thats only because we cannot afford the D3x and relatively cheaper & bigger sensors are not yet available. If we had a D300/D700 with 24MP, do you think sales will be slow for it in Singapore?

4. Exactly. Jed is saying that in his region/home, they are not as crazy as us.

5. Really? WHO cares what the Pros use? Come on, you gotta be kidding me. If this is true, we would not be quoting/reviewing blogs and reviews by them. Why do we also get newbies asking 'what lens do CSers use to shoot models etc? If we dont care, we would not want the 16-35mm or any other 'Gold Rings' & 'Trinity' in the first place.

Greed has a price.

 

[Goenitz2009]

distortion seems serious at 16mm. how abt 24mm?

I suggest we keep comments to ourselves rather than say out what we feel. Should thank Num for posting the pics.

 

[Goenitz2009]

Noted your points. My point is, someone here is willing to take his time share his experience and photographs here to show how the new lens work with a D700, it is better than nothing at all. a lens at such a price tag cost an averge person 1 month's pay, we should be glad to see the end result before deciding is it worth to part with our hard earn money or not.

Don't feel strange when you find people said that oooh it good enough and than start comparing A and B again, this is part of human (most but not all) or i should say its Singaporean.

80% of buyer for this lens will use it with a sensor not bigger than 12MP, the reviews just seems fine as it is showing sharpness at edge, bokeh and its low light performance and how someone who use 17-35 comment on this 16-35.

Anyway different countries have different cultures, different occupation different ages see things differently. i guess there is nothing wrong with anything and anyone.

Finally, you are bringing out a point of how lenses are to be tested, i am bringing out a point that we are happy that someone here is willing to share using his D700, its better than NONE. As for PRO, my point is a price tag of D3X is not what we can afford and the PROs are the one who will likely buy them. Who cares PRO use what camera and lenses

Very true... At least someone bothers to post pics... I think we should say thank you instead of putting our personal comments in ya? Even a gear discussion forum also needs to have some sense of politeness ya? :bsmilie:

 

[Goenitz2009]

Hmm, so the lens is sharp wide open and excellent when stopped down... and you've judged this on a d700?

What happens if it's used on a D3x then? Does this drop to not very sharp wide open and sharp stopped down?

How many people are now going to run around thinking the 16-35 is suuuuuper sharp?

Not everyone can own a D3x to confirm this... You wan to volunteer?:sweat:

 

[David Lee]

Sorry but I have to edit and number your post as it would be easier to summarise...and for me to dissect.

1. Since we trust Nikon so much, I dont see the real need to see results of this Professional Grade lens before purchase.

2. It is Singaporean. We have to admit that we are truely a technologically crazed, and 'gotta get the best' kind of people. KIASU we call it.

3. Thats only because we cannot afford the D3x and relatively cheaper & bigger sensors are not yet available. If we had a D300/D700 with 24MP, do you think sales will be slow for it in Singapore?

4. Exactly. Jed is saying that in his region/home, they are not as crazy as us.

5. Really? WHO cares what the Pros use? Come on, you gotta be kidding me. If this is true, we would not be quoting/reviewing blogs and reviews by them. Why do we also get newbies asking 'what lens do CSers use to shoot models etc? If we dont care, we would not want the 16-35mm or any other 'Gold Rings' & 'Trinity' in the first place.

Greed has a price.

Hi, sorry for me to say that

1) a 70-200 VR is also a good lens compare to the new VRII, but the end result is different between a DX and FX body. Just like those looking between a new 16-35 and a 2nd hand 17-35, they need to know the pro n cons of the 2 lenses and how it works in DX, FX and how it performs taking HD movies... at least for my case.

2) agreed, most Singaporean are kiasu, but in this hobby, kiasu cost alot

3) Yes, when cheaper and higher MP sensors are out, alot will upgrade to it, but right now, the most affordable and highest sensor is 12MP, we should do the testing on lenses base on 12MP and better still, if someone with a higher MP camera willing to share some review. Also note that when the time comes for cheaper and higher MP DSLR, more people will be using DSLR with 12MP and below since there will be more 2nd hand DSLR on sale and prices will be lower for both new n old DSLR.
JED is right coz u need high MP to truely shows the potential of the lens, but currently 99% user using 12MP and below and since we are discussing it NOW, i think a review using 12MP should be enough.

4) different mind, diff culture think differently, there is no right or wrong.

5) Yes, people do look at what set up pro use, but who cares, if you give me a D3X with all the latest and best lenses in the world, i am unable to produce the kind of images with an experience photographer using D90 with 18-105 coz they gain from experience, not equipments.

people just want the best, they might not truely understand what they really needed. To be very honest, u give me a D3 is a waste of money coz i only shoot simple photos. Yes, Greed has a price

This are just my personal opinions, since this is a forum for discussions, i just speak what i think, hope it is in no way offend anybody as everybody in CS are here to learn/share and make friends.

 

[chngpe01]

Very true... At least someone bothers to post pics... I think we should say thank you instead of putting our personal comments in ya? Even a gear discussion forum also needs to have some sense of politeness ya? :bsmilie:

I don't think there is impoliteness here. And I believe that opinion can be express as long as there is no malice. No point saying all the good things and listening to all good things that is pleasing to the ears, cos we will never move forward.

Even for Jed comments, he is going on a more technical point, ie, To let forum members know that sharpness is not just measured as what Num has stated. Cos it may not be as sharp when couple with a higher MP camera in this case there is only one the D3x. Hence, looking at it from another angle, it is a good learning point. I don't think he trying to be personal nor thumb down Numnumball.

 

[David Lee]

Unlike teleconversation where we can hear the pitch and understand thats a sentence is polite or not, when we send out text message, the other parties might "decode" wrongly and thus cause misunderstanding.

As i had said, everyone here are in for discussion and i believe all wanted to contribute to another's question/enquiry.

 

[Goenitz2009]

Politeness - It is just like in forums like this, most people tend to forget a few things. When TS took the effort to post pics and viewers simply ask "how about 24mm?" I think we could have phrased it in a way like "thanks for the sharing, but I am wondering how is the distorting at 24? Mind if you post up some samples and gladly appreciate it"

In our fast paced society, emails and posts are diminished to a tool to simply 'get down to business'. And hence the directness which sometimes causes conflicts in other threads etc. I am not an advocater of the Graciousness Campaign but I just feel that if people do bother to post pics, especially of something like the 16-35 f4, then we should have at least exercised some patience and politeness.

2cents

 

[Legoz]

The point I am making is, most lenses are plenty sharp enough on a sensor with the resolution of a D700, which is outresolved in the middle of the frame by an 8 year old D100.

It has nothing to do with pro, and whether you own a D3x or not. It's pretty much a given that almost any lens introduced today will be "sharp wide open and excellent stopped down" on a camera that really does not push the boundaries of lens performance.

It's strange that in this situation people are happy to go ooooh it's good enough, yet when someone compares lens A to lens B then someone will come up with some reason as to why one of the lenses is better, even if you need a microscope to see the difference. It's even worse if lens A and lens B belonged to brand A and brand B.

I'd also bet if a 16-35/4 version II was released tomorrow suddenly the 16-35/4 version I wouldn't be good enough to a large number of users even though they're still using the same camera.

In essence you're saying, this is good enough for you. I'm glad you think that because you're right.

I'd also wager a 17-35/2.8 is good enough, and an 18-35/3.5-4.5, and other lenses of that ilk.

I guess my point is, 99% of the stuff out there is plenty good enough for 99% of the users on this forum. And that is possibly being very conservative in my estimate. So it doesn't go against your viewpoint at all.

And before you get any ideas, I am comfortably within that 99% myself.

Aside from that I'm merely bringing up a point about testing methodology and not any sort of claim about whether a lens is good enough for pro use, whether you're a pro, whether you need a D3x to be a pro, or whatever.

Thankfully, you are around to keep the sanity in check. =)

 

[Kit]

distortion seems serious at 16mm. how abt 24mm?

Good if you can find a distortion free UWA.....