Nikon AF-S FX NIKKOR 16-35mm f/4G ED Zoom Lens with Vibration Reduction and Auto Focus for Nikon DSLR Cameras Review

Different pros: Universal focal lengths for "width", beautiful picture, stabilizer, reasonable price, comfortable to grip. Has cons: "A VACUUM CLEANER"! When zoomed in, out" if they already put "N", however.

With its pros: Juicy colors, landscapes are gorgeous, but everything spoils the flaws (see below) Has some cons: mm. 35mm - maliciously lathers along the edges, Aperture is not the best,

Just a great width. It has a fairly wide application - from landscape to portrait. Totally worth your money. I never regretted that I took it, and not used 14-24. I use it in tandem with the d600 - the bundle is very worthy. Pros below: Sharpness. F4 is quite suitable for reporting, and for the landscape it is not so critical - the corners are slightly soft, no more. Razor in the center. At f8, the wildest sharpness Corner. Really broad. Allows you to cover large areas. Also, the super-wide…

DO NOT take it to the crop! Focal neither two nor one and a half per crop. A wide angle is more or less enough, but 35 is not enough. On crop, take 17-55 2.8 and do not listen to stories about a further transition to FF. I recalled these 20 mm and 2.8 holes more than once on reports, throwing glass. In addition, according to the reviews of people who took this glass from me to use it, it gives out all its capabilities on the FF. It's more boring on the crop. : I bought a d800. I realized that…

I think that this lens is a definite "must have" for those who need a wide-angle lens. It was released after the much-loved 17-35. But the manufacturer did not pursue aperture, but relied on functionality. For shooting with modern cameras with the ability to set the sensitivity to ISO 800 or more, there will probably be no problem with aperture. In addition, it is reasonable that the use of width is landscape, landscape photography and reporting. It is for the latter type of shooting that the…

I use it mainly as a travel lens on a 610 carcass. For several trips, only a couple of times I wanted to take it off and shoot portraits with the 85th fix. I think it's perfect for a wedding reportage on one of the carcasses. The only drawback is that at a wide angle it can greatly stretch faces on the periphery of the frame. What some owners write here in the review about soap on an open aperture . After testing, I realized that everything is not so scary, yes, there is a little soap around…

Not suitable for crop. On the 800th Nikon fit perfectly. For 16 mm, distortion is minimized, whoever is not happy with this should remember the laws of physics) Sharpness is more than enough. Even wide open and at all focal lengths. Volumetric photos at 16mm are very pleasing. The polarizing filter is perfect and expands the possibilities. The 16-24mm range is very interesting for any genre, including plein air portraits and beautiful interiors. Boke is not his brush, but it is! The most…

Great for travel and sightseeing. On the crop, there is an almost universal range of focal lengths, while there is absolutely no distortion even in extreme positions and is sharp throughout the cropped field (advantage over 18-105, etc.). Distortion at 16 mm (FF) is striking if there are straight lines at the edge of the frame. At 20-30 mm it is practically invisible, at 35 mm it is small. The lens is very long, but light. http://fotki. . Ru/users/mrt-2022/album/113401/?p=0 - here are…

A very practical option given the range, filter threads, weight and stub. Practicality comes at a cost of quality. The lens is not for capturing infinity with all the details across the field, or not for viewing these details at 100%. If the main object is in the center, the picture is great. At dusk, it turns into an analogue of f / 1.4 (and sometimes f / 1.2) in terms of the ability to take light on scenes without movement, but with f / 4 depth of field. Illuminated city streets work well…

The model has a gold ring, with all the consequences. Quality product, reliable in work. I don’t know why everyone swears at sharpness, for me personally, the lens showed excellent results both on the d800 and on the d750. Sharpness is excellent, close to fixes. The lens has been exposed to heavy rains, snowfalls, dust and everything that can be encountered on the thorny path of a news reporter. Unfortunately, sometimes you have to shoot groups of people at a wide angle, and I don’t envy…

After reading a laudatory order on the Internet about a professional "super sharp" 14-24, I went to buy it, but as a result of two hours of testing and comparison with 16-35, the choice fell on the latter. The main reason 16-35 turned out to be a sharper lens at all focal lengths, sharpness it really starts with aperture 4, which is impossible to say about 14-24 even at aperture 5.6, at a wide angle. Good luck to all !

After reading the reviews that they say it’s not sharp, I was in thought, before that I used 18-35g, in the end I bought it and I don’t regret it, the sharpness on my full-frame 24 megapixel camera is what I need, I can’t complain, to be honest I don’t even notice the difference between him and nikorovsky 24-70. Of course, I don’t shoot interiors, mostly weddings, reportage, it fits perfectly for my tasks, yes, of course, not 2.8, but f4 doesn’t bother me. From the sharpness of 18-35, my eye…

I want to warn my colleagues not to make mistakes! For a long time I have been doing interior and subject shooting on the D800E, this lens is considered the TOP professional ultra wide zoom in terms of quality . In fact, the quality turns out to be absolutely no good, the picture crumbles (there is no detail) even with a tripod, a closed hole and manual focusing . and even in the center of the frame, I just keep quiet about the corners! For example, a cheap Samyang 14mm F2.8 gives a MUCH more

I am surprised by reviews of this lens from reputable sites such as http://aflenses. Ru and photAmazon. De. Of course, I did not conduct instrumental research and compare this lens with similar ones. But, according to my subjective feelings, the test results are not entirely objective. I have been working with this lens for more than a year paired with the Nikon D600 and the lens only makes me happy. In terms of design and ergonomics, this is one of the best lenses. Dust-moisture protection…

The lens is good. But I washed godlessly on the D800E. A wide angle is more or less working after 8, on a narrow one from 5.6. The edge of the frame is almost always not sharp. After 24-70, the feeling that I bought a cheap craft. Yes, and there was a feeling that the resolution of the lens for the D800 is not enough. As a result, I returned it to the store and bought 14-24.

I got it for the D800 due to the fact that the desired 14-24 / 2.8 is very expensive. The disappointment is complete. It absolutely does not allow the matrix of this device, there is no talk of using a full crop, a maximum of 50-60%. Well, soap is always and everywhere, even on a closed aperture. I compared it with the cheaper 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S, now I understand why the price of this lens has risen from the original 24k. up to 30t. R. - it is definitely not worse than 16-35 / 4 !…

I chose between 16-35 and 17-35 as a landscape painter for the D800. I stopped at 16-35 because of stabilization (which is important when using on the D800) and a sharper picture. The lens is relatively flat at all focal lengths. It behaves best at 24 mm (the edges almost do not lather). On the D800, it is impossible to fully unleash the potential of the lens: the best resolution and sharpness in the center is demonstrated at F7.1, but at the same time soap at the edges (although acceptable)…