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 accept the use of cookies and that you have read and accepted the Terms of service and Privacy.
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 175000 members, there is space for everyone, from the beginner to the professional.
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.
Pros:Clarity across the field already from f4 (excluding 35mm), distortion noteworthy only at 16mm (corrects in the room), discreet resistance to flare, use of 77mm filters, VR, color yield, minimum focus distance, weight and quite modest size, versatility, zoom and AF INTERNI (it does not rotate anything, nothing comes out, no dust comes in), tropicalized.
Cons:At 35mm as sharpness drops a bit to f4 and you have to close to f5, 6-f8.
Opinion:Great beautiful lens, with a very versatile range of focals, fantastic the zoom and af interior mechanism. Ideal for landscapes and architecture (most obvious distortion at 16mm,solvable directly in the room). With a small minimum maf distance, it can also be used for close-up and creative shots. Coupled with 70-200 f4 is an exceptional combination. Personally I mount the 16-35 on the Nikon D850 (where thanks to the high number of Mpixels I can crop in the room or in pp to get the focal points between 35mm and 70mm) and the 70-200 on Nikon D600. If you do not want to complicate life with a 14-24 f2.8 (unmanageable by weight, clutter and impossibility of easy use of filters) and you can give up an f2.8, this is the right lens.
Pros:Sharpness across the field, rugged, VR, front diameter for filters
Cons:16 correctable Distortion, if you do architecture
Opinion:Taken to mount it on DF and D810, and immediately I noticed that it was a great zoom, for landscapes and street is the best that you can have, at all Apermi I find the optics in question excellent, has no particular sagging, I found to TA the extreme edges read more morbid I, but not in an egregious manner. In weddings, I noticed that I use in a very high percentage of the 16 -35, both for excellent quality and because it encloses the focal range most important for photography, the last VR where for me it really makes sense, so you can shoot with lower times , and keep the lower ISO, this Nikon works great. Beautiful lens also in the construction and especially in the various fields of employment, which are many, in the landscape is essential.
Cons:Slight loss at the extreme edges, 16mm distortion easily correctable in post.
Opinion:There are various thoughts and experiences on this lens, I noticed the negative comments of the last 4 users, while the previous reviews are exciting, this makes me think maybe an inconstancy of quality of the specimens, I say this because mine is extraordinary, Excellent sharpness on the center and median parts of the frame already at F4 which closes further improves, a slight drop in the extreme edges but I think is justified by the amplitude of the zoom. I confirm the distortion to 16mm, but it corrects fine in post, easily on Lightroom that I use. At 35mm It is true that it loses a little bit, but not so dramatic the result then I noticed that it also depends on the origin of the light. In conclusion I can say that the lens is great as long as you find the specimen without defects, so I recommend it quietly but try it before you buy it.
Opinion:There is unfortunately the slip of a brand, and if for Canon was the 16-35 (which have always been far from being a decent lens), for Nikon is this lens. Now let's bypass the construction considerations directly. Already said on my review of 24-70: Nikon wanted to lower the bar. Maybe to try to sell more spare parts and more manpower once the guarantee is over, I have no idea. I only know that if you compare it to a 17-35 or 20-35, the construction will be enormously different. I can't get my head off the toy sensation once I've picked up the new Nikon Lenses. It's going to be me, but it's okay. About the optical quality I do not understand how you can praise a similar lens. It costs a roar, it is an f4, the sharpness at F4 makes laugh from half frame to the edges and becomes homogeneous by dropping on average at f11. Nikon has put the VR in a wide angle because so you can shoot at F11 in broad daylight without raising the ISO (ahahah). I don't really tell you not to buy it, I just tell you to look at the graphs MTF or lw\\ph online, and to see this lens actually as it is. But then it costs new as a sigma art 14-24...
Pros:Weight, comfortable excursion, possibility to use circular filters, good resistance to flare, stabilizer
Cons:Decay angles up to F8, general softness, ludicrous lens hood.
Opinion:I will be very bad, but it was a great disappointment to me. Bought used at a great price and used on D700 and D3s (which "forgive" much to the optics less performing), I resold after a few months (without losing, fortunately). I had thought I had a specimen a little ' stressed or failed, but I did check and they said it was perfectly average... So. People like Ken Rockwell who say that this lens is the sharpest of all wide-angle zooms (even more than the 14-24) should make their glasses. Photozone, which is much more honest in the judgments, places it in a price range too high for what it gives, saying that it does "everything" discreetly but without excelling in anything. Sharpness to the discrete center (even closing), to the disastrous edges at all openings (just a little better from F8 to F11). Of course, the stabilizer helps bring home the shot... But a click Always and still not clear if you do not intervene in post. I do not speak of the "famous" distortion at 16mm, because easily solvable in PP. Who buys it at full price, in my opinion, does not make a good investment. For what applies to me should cost at most 7/800 € from new (Nital) and not double, as I see written here at the top (and what is for sale by my shopkeeper of confidence). For much less there is the Tokina 16-28, which is built better and is also 2.8 (OK, now I do not beat with the stabilizer and with the use of filters... Are things cognite). Nikon should definitely upgrade it, because it is a product that, with the features it has on the card and, if done well, could be a ' must have '. If he doesn't upgrade, he should take the Golden ring off him! Rated 4.
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}
![[retina]](shared_files/layout/retina_badge.jpg){kind=icon}
