JuzaPhoto uses technical cookies and third-part cookies to provide the service and to make possible login, choice of background color and other settings (click here for more info).
By continuing to browse the site you confirm that you have read your options regarding cookies and that you have read and accepted the Terms of service and Privacy.
You can change in every moment your cookies preferences from the page Cookie Preferences, that can be reached from every page of the website with the link that you find at the bottom of the page; you can also set your preferences directly here
The Nikon AF-S 16-35mm f/4 G ED VR is a wide-angle lens for FF and APS-C, manufactured from 2010 to 2021 (discontinued). The focus is done by Ultrasonic AF Motor (Ring-USM), it has image stabilization. The average price, when it has been added to the JuzaPhoto database, is 1232 €;
150 users have given it an average vote of 9.2 out of 10.
MOUNT
This lens is available with the following mounts:
Nikon F: this lens is compatible with reflex fullframe and APS-C Nikon.
Do you want add your opinion? You do it by joining JuzaPhoto, it is easy and free!
There is more: by registering you can create your personal page, publish photos, receive comments, join discussions and you can use all the features of JuzaPhoto. With more than 232000 members, there is space for everyone, from the beginner to the professional.
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
Opinion:At full aperture it distorts, not excessively, obviously depends on the mode and place of shooting, then, apart from the sacred monsters, which wide angle does not suffer? In any case correctable in p.p. - Weight not excessive, balanced on the D4, filter from 77 (which does not hurt), the lens does not stretch zooming. I did not detect anything else, for my landscape and street photos I would buy it again.
Opinion:I would also like to contribute by exposing my opinions on this fairly denigrated lens that I have owned for over two years now, chosen after a long diatribe with his brother 17-35 f2.8. I needed a grandndolo not pushed, with a good focal excursion to be able to use it even in the street, of satisfactory quality and that was not a boulder. I must say that the 16-35 satisfied me in full in everything, also considering the possibility of mounting 77 screw filters (I use CPL a lot) and the stabilization that is an added value. I don't take much interest in charts, MTFs or brick wall photos, my impressions are purely like a Sunday amateur photographer. It is true that at 16mm it has more or less correctable distortion and vignetting (this easily correctable), but the general yield is more than satisfactory for my needs. I also didn't find it as disastrous at 35mm as others say. The only note I can make is related to the size: not so much the weight that is almost acceptable, but its length that for my taste is excessive and tends to unbalance the body (D750) during walking. In hindsight perhaps today I would evaluate the tamron 17-35 but only for a speech of weights / dimensions. I am finding myself very well so that from an initial sporadic use for specific situations, it has become one of the main objectives that I almost always carry with me.
Pros:Weight but above all, for those who use filters, diameter from 77 (which saves a lot considering the prices of Nisi slabs)
Cons:not relevant
Opinion:I waited months before giving an opinion on this goal, and reading even before the purchase of the MTF tests. It is incomprehensible in my modest opinion how it is by many photographers (amateurs or professionals who are) underestimated. I had the pleasure of being able to compare it with 14/24 2.8, 24/70 2.8 and 24/120 f/4, and as fussy as it is, in view of the considerable difference in price to purchase (with the exception of 24/120 f/4) I would not give up at all 16/35 in favor of the others mentioned above. The mtf speak clearly, to very open diaphragms limps but from the f/6.3 the gap with the much "decanted" 14/24 f/2.8 (reference point of the Nikon wide-angle category) is narrowing. The vignette that many highlight is in my opinion completely irrelevant given the possibility with Ps to eliminate it (for what little it highlights) in a blink of an eye. The sharpness at the edges, on the open diaphragms, is certainly not that of 14/24 but moreover the price is not and, as it closes at f/7.1 the difference disappears. In my opinion, it is an excellent optics, due to the fact that, using it exclusively in the mountains for landscapes, my diaphragms always range from f/8 to f/13 thus eliminating that "limp" of his to open diaphragms. Moreover, I do not have the problem of holder and slabs, being able to use Nisi filters on all the wide angles I own, which is a nice saving of both weight and euro! I link with the test for those interested: https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-16-35mm-f4g-vr/2
Opinion:Good morning, you read several conflicting opinions on this optics, I report my photo-amateur from excursions and trips. The optics are perfect for my needs: optimal focal excursion, VR doing its job, acceptable weight and above all 77mm filters so I can do long exposures without bleeding out with slab filters. The sharpness at F 4 is ok in the center and enough at the edges, diaphragm at 5.6 and 8 becomes homogeneous throughout the frame. The distortion for me is acceptable, just be careful when shooting and avoid several problems, also if you want to eliminate distortions you have to use the decentralizables, otherwise there are always... New costs a lot (too much), I took it used at a reasonable cost.
Cons:disastrous angles at 16 mm, water infiltration
Opinion:after a year of use I can say that the defects outweigh the merits. The focal range is excellent the weight quite contained although not the stated one (720 gr with lampshade) combined with an exceptional VR for freehand photos that I regret very much. Unfortunately, the lens is only tropicalized on paper, following a trip to Iceland with frontal spray from a waterfall (not direct water on the target) and dried immediately were formed concentric rings inside the lenses, perhaps remnants of limestone/ dirt as a result of drying forcing me to sell it at a price to say the least ridiculous. Disastrous 16 mm angles, in some cases you are forced to cut them from how opaque and insharp they are.
The sample photos are selected automatically between all photos posted by JuzaPhoto members, using the camera and the lens selected in the techs. If you find evident errors (e.g. photos taken with cameras and lenses that are not available yet), you can contribute to improve the page by sending a private message to the user that has entered incorrect values in the photo caption.
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
![[editors pick]](shared_files/layout/ep_badge.jpg){kind=icon}
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.
