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

[ZeroDivine]

I do. Results same as you do.
It somehow perform much better in terms of corner sharpness at wide open (17 @ f2.8 and 16 at f4) and very good to excellent in terms of center sharpness when stop down 1 to f5.6 and 2 more to f8. Colors are slightly contrast and vivid when compared to 17-35f2.8 :thumbsup:

yeah quite surprised too, didn't expect the difference to be so big considering the 17-35 was the nikon's gold standard for WA zoom for the last decade.
I was considering 17-35 too (cos of the 2.8). But after comparing with the 16-35 there is no contest on optical quality.

 

[ZeroDivine]

btw bro nnumball, your shop still has stock for 16-35?
pls pm if you don't mind revealing the shop and roughly how much u paid for it.
thx alot

 

[Numnumball]

yeah quite surprised too, didn't expect the difference to be so big considering the 17-35 was the nikon's gold standard for WA zoom for the last decade.
I was considering 17-35 too (cos of the 2.8). But after comparing with the 16-35 there is no contest on optical quality.

I am taken aback as well.. To frank, Before FF (nt 35mm firm) was introduced way few years bk with D3, 17-35 f2.8 excel really in Digital bodies like D2H, D2XS ETC.. But on FF it's good but nth more (14-24 spoil market u see :bsmilie It amaze me first when i used it on my D700 but not the way its does when i mount the 16-35 on the same cam. Now i really believe its time for it to move aside(retire) and make way for this new sensation in UWA standards in nikon class (that take filters)

But thats the thing abt digital stuff isn't it~!? New is always better and cheaper :bsmilie:

 

[achtungbaby]

How ridiculous?I'm curious on the market offers.Hehe.
Is it true this 16-35 is below SGD 2k?Anyone who owns one,do let me know.Thanks

Cathay 1 pc left as yet 1pm today: $2100

Alan Photo last pc taken by me at 6pm today $1860.

I am amazed at the sharpness n the VR really helps!

No funny distortion as compared with the 14-24mm which I have long sold.

 

[Numnumball]

Cathay 1 pc left as yet 1pm today: $2100

Alan Photo last pc taken by me at 6pm today $1860.

I am amazed at the sharpness n the VR really helps!

No funny distortion as compared with the 14-24mm which I have long sold.

Wow, :bigeyes: Quite ridiculous at how much CP charges..:think:

Suggest to those who want to get, just wait there should be more stock coming in soon

 

[Vulpix0r]

This sucks man, called AP around 4:30pm they say no stock of the lens... And somehow someone manages to get it from AP... Sigh.

 

[fevernova]

whoa... usually the variance isnt so significant across the major shops. seems like novelty has a premium nowaday. it wasnt like this when the 70-200VR II was released a few months back.

Back to the issue of 16-35 vs the 14-24, my opinion is that the longer working range in the 16-35 is more useful than the 14-24 despite the F4.0 factor. In the current nikon FF cameras line-up whereby high ISO prevails, this would not be concern at all. the VR will also assist in low light condition and at low shutter speed.

Im thinking of getting one myself. any recommendation as to which store has the stock and the best pricing currently?

Rgds.

But what if you're shooting close up wide open and need that blurring effect? The 2.8 will make quite abit of difference wouldn't it? I feel like just buying both.....:sweat:

 

[Numnumball]

But what if you're shooting close up wide open and need that blurring effect? The 2.8 will make quite abit of difference wouldn't it? I feel like just buying both.....:sweat:

Bro, a prime lke 50 f1.8 will better tat in terms of achieving oof areas if tats what u r referring.. UWA is never good at doing that becos of its relatively shorter focal length..

Digging deep into ur pockets to fund both lens is truly not recommendable, reason being overlapping focal range though each has its own use (14-24 is a special purpose lens) unless u really have the dough~ then i not in the position to stop u.. just dun wan u to act in impulse..

trust me, you won't have the time to optimize their usage..Just one will suffice lar *i'm helping u save money leh :nono:*

 

[luntut]

But what if you're shooting close up wide open and need that blurring effect? The 2.8 will make quite abit of difference wouldn't it? I feel like just buying both.....:sweat:

f/4, and f/2.8.

do not expect a whole world of difference in terms of bokeh (or blurring effect as you call it).

you will be sorely disappointed that, at that amount of money you pay, everything else remaining the same except for the lens, the bokeh is not worth it.

that f/2.8 is used for something else. not to increase blurring that much, or as much as you hoped for.

you might want to consider 24 f/1.4 if you wan blur stuff.

dont spend 3k just to find out that the bluring is not what you want. that was what happened to me when i bought my first f/2.8 constant lens.

 

[kylelam77]

I am taken aback as well.. To frank, Before FF (nt 35mm firm) was introduced way few years bk with D3, 17-35 f2.8 excel really in Digital bodies like D2H, D2XS ETC.. But on FF it's good but nth more (14-24 spoil market u see :bsmilie It amaze me first when i used it on my D700 but not the way its does when i mount the 16-35 on the same cam. Now i really believe its time for it to move aside(retire) and make way for this new sensation in UWA standards in nikon class (that take filters)

But thats the thing abt digital stuff isn't it~!? New is always better and cheaper :bsmilie:

This is interesting. The 17-35 is marketed as a pro lens by Nikon alongside the 16-35 and yet the optical quality suggests otherwise. Is the only advantage of the 17-35 its speed then? Hv seen on dpreview forum that some fellow had tested them both side by side and said the 17-35 was quite abit sharper across the board compared to the 16-35 (no picture comparisons tho).

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1030&thread=34633368

 

[David Lee]

Can anyone with the lens do a review on a film SLR? wonder how it performs on film. The 17-35 is very very good with F5.

I still have my F5 with me, who knows when will i use it again... Anyway, the Sigma 12-24 sucks when on film.

 

[Vulpix0r]

Anyone saw stock anywhere else other than Cathay?

 

[fevernova]

Bro, a prime lke 50 f1.8 will better tat in terms of achieving oof areas if tats what u r referring.. UWA is never good at doing that becos of its relatively shorter focal length..

Digging deep into ur pockets to fund both lens is truly not recommendable, reason being overlapping focal range though each has its own use (14-24 is a special purpose lens) unless u really have the dough~ then i not in the position to stop u.. just dun wan u to act in impulse..

trust me, you won't have the time to optimize their usage..Just one will suffice lar *i'm helping u save money leh :nono:*

Thanks bro for your input! I think I'll probably stick with the 16-35....

 

[Numnumball]

This is interesting. The 17-35 is marketed as a pro lens by Nikon alongside the 16-35 and yet the optical quality suggests otherwise. Is the only advantage of the 17-35 its speed then? Hv seen on dpreview forum that some fellow had tested them both side by side and said the 17-35 was quite abit sharper across the board compared to the 16-35 (no picture comparisons tho).

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1030&thread=34633368

Oh i m surprised views differ.. :think:

Actually in terms of AF speed 16-35 is only abit slower (but fast enuff for a UWA).

 

[icarus]

Can those lucky owners with this 16-35 VR please post some photos? I really need to get poisoned

 

[yangs]

Can those lucky owners with this 16-35 VR please post some photos? I really need to get poisoned

me too.... read until very very poisoned in the mind already
one photo might just push me over, but !!! no stock!

 

[Jeremy1]

me too.... read until very very poisoned in the mind already
one photo might just push me over, but !!! no stock!

There is at 1 shop. Stock just arrived. But I think I will hold on to it first.

 

[fevernova]

This weekend sounds like fun....16-35 here I come!

 

[Numnumball]

Hi Guys, as suggested by a few.. Decided to pose a few pics and share with y'all my experience shooting with it full day..when i decided to ditch my 17-35 and 24-70 (temporarily, leaving them at home) and only bring along ONE 16-35 to accompany me throughout my short Holiday trip to HK.

For your reference : -

Daylight performance with this lens: -

Taken with D700 handheld in Raw and converted to Jpeg, with most shots at 16mm,so literally this is a test at its widest focal length only.. Min PP done. (Only Minor cropping, reviving burned out areas and re-contrasting only..)

#1 - Settings : ISO 200, F4 (wide open), 1/640 at 16mm

#2 - Settings : ISO 100, F5.6, 1/50 at 16mm

#3 - Settings : ISO 200, F8, 1/640 at 16mm

#4 - Settings : ISO 720, F11, 1/250, +0.3Ev, at 16mm

​

In summary imho, 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. Ghost and Flare is very very well controlled with Nano in place (which is one of the contributing factor that made me took the plunge). Perspective distortion is inevitable in most UWA so i go with that..

Will try to post the night performance by tml its getting late & want to Zzzz liao..

Hee. nites

P.s. Sorry for the bad metering/compositioning in some of the pics as all are taken in a rush..

 

[ZeroDivine]

just a quick test @ 16mm wide open f/4 on my d700 just now

minimal sharpening in ps.