|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.  | sent on January 08, 2020 Pros: focal excursion, VR, weight 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. |
 | sent on August 24, 2019 Pros: Focus, sharpness, versatility. Cons: Just the weight. Opinion: This is an exceptional lens for me. Gifts colors and super sharpness and above all it is a wide-angle pushed, just as I like it. Among my best shots, many were made with this lens. The only downside is the weight and size that are remarkable (unfortunately), otherwise it is a lens that I love and that I recommend. I didn't find any defects in hallucirate lenses or anything like that. For me a 9.5 as a grade (the half point is only for weight/clutter, but I also understand that the project - to include VR - probably could not allow smaller dimensions). |
  | sent on June 11, 2019 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. |
 | sent on November 22, 2018 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. |
 | sent on November 14, 2018 Pros: Versatility, sharpness, counterlight sealing, construction. 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. |
 | sent on October 12, 2018 Pros: Great lens... Cons: To use as Paperweights 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... |
 | sent on September 23, 2017 Pros: Weight, comfortable excursion, possibility to use circular filters, good flare resistance, stabilizer Cons: Decay corners up to f8, general softness, ridiculous lampshed. Opinion: I may be very bad, but it was a great disappointment to me. Purchased used at an excellent price and used on the d700 and D3s (which "forgive" a lot to the less performing optics), I resold it after a few months (without losing, fortunately). I thought i'd had a specimen that was a little stressed or failed, but I had it checked out and they told me it was perfectly average... So. People like Ken Rockwell who say this lens is the sharpest of all wide-angle zooms (even more than 14-24) should make their glasses again, and those who are content to shoot from f8 onwards won't necessarily see too many differences with other lenses... but it doesn't take a genius to figure it out! Photozone, which is much more honest in judgments, places it in a price range too high for what it gives, saying that it does "everything" discreetly but without excelling at anything. Sharpness in the discreet center (even closing), at the disastrous edges at all openings (a little better from f8 to f11). Of course, the stabilizer helps bring home the shot... but a shot always and in any case not clear if you do not intervene in post. I am not talking about the "famous" 16mm distortion, because it can be easily solved in PP. Those who buy it at full price, in my opinion, do not make a good investment. For what is valid for me it should cost a maximum of 7/800 € from new (Nital) and not double, as I see written here at the top (and to what is for sale by my trusted shopkeeper). Nikon should definitely update it, because it is a product that, with the features it has on paper and, if done well, could be a 'must have'. If you don't update it, you should take the golden ring off! Vote 4. |
 | sent on July 14, 2017 Pros: Focal excursion; Weight content; Possibility of using circular filters. Cons: Strong distortion at 16 mm; Very poor sharpness especially on the edges; hood; High price. Opinion: Taken, used on the D800 but immediately resold for 14-24. A 16 mm. The distortion is very pronounced, and the sharpness is poor especially on the edges and even the most closed diaphragms. Intermediate focal lengths improve slightly and then get worse again at 35 mm. Because the FF focal range for a landscaper is ideal, because it has a low weight and because it is possible to mount regular circular filters. But what does Nikon expect to see it again? I envy the canonists for their zoom counterpart who is a blade and it costs even less! |
 | sent on June 28, 2017 Pros: VR, aesthetics and construction, 35mm, f4 constant, flare resistant (NanoCrystal) Cons: Tires, Sharpness, weight and grip Opinion: It was fine on the d700, with Df and d800 only in the center while the edges are just enough, with d7100 it is inguardable. 16mm is not ultrawide in return, the excursion up to 35mm is very convenient. VR is always useful, the aesthetic is beautiful, good construction excluding tire that tends to whiten, heavy and bulky. Personally I will soon replace it with nikkor 14-24 / sigma 12-24 art / samyang 14. Recommended for FF with a few mpxs, if you do not miss it, online price. |
 | sent on February 25, 2017 Pros: Very versatile range of focal points, sharpness to intermediate focals, excellent flare sealing and parasitic reflexes Cons: Marked distortion at focal courts, mocious edges at focal courts, general low sharpness at 35 mm, plastic construction, ridiculous lampshade, VR useless to focal ones, price too high Opinion: I used it on D4 and D 810, it's one of the optics I used the most, and it's pretty sharp in the middle and median 18 to 28 mm: very snooty edges even at F8 to 16-20 mm, moves on 24 - 28 mm, and general lack of sharpness at 35 mm, the image is slightly veiled. I had two, the first one destroyed in an accident, and the surrender was the same. Built all of plastic and with a lampshade that could possibly cost even half a euro, it's ridiculous, and the optics cost 1200 euros. VR to focal points is useless. Barrel distortion too pronounced at 16 mm, to correct it you have to cut the image too much. Reliable AF, but focal ones and an F 4 matter little. Excellent hold to flare and parasitic reflexes. Bad value for money. In the end I sold it for low optical quality, today there is much, but really better at equal or lower price. |
user58495  | sent on July 10, 2016 Pros: Amazing sharpness, color rendering, bokeh, three-dimensional, construction, weather sealing, image stabilization, filters attack Cons: Size, price a little 'higher Opinion: Bought yesterday morning, mounted on Df for some quick testing, was stupefatto.rnLeggendo various international reviews I had got the idea that it was a great goal, but until you have in hand and use it, do not you realize a masterpiece which has produced Nikon.Se the initial price may seem excessive, when used, it is understood that in the end is not so high: the definition and sharpness is a scream, almost unbelievable for a wide-angle and all the diaphragms. despite the opening of F 4, it provides an excellent bokeh, with a minimum focusing distance really notevole.Lo stabilizer helps you get good pictures even with bassissimi.senza time to regret wider apertures, which inevitably lead to higher prezzi.Nonostante solid construction and dust-proof, is not very heavy, even if, given the size it feels to mount a big canvas, rather than a zoom grandangolare.I colors, then they are wonderful, pasty, precise, without excess, with such cleanliness required not to knead the partiesColari in lontananza.La morbidity at the edges to F4 is perceptible, but not all fastidiosa.Attenti these "morbid" to the edges full aperture often talk about it after doing a test shot, but f4 and 16 mm, is it is almost always the first fuzzy plans, simply because the focus is calculated maybe ten meters away on the main subject and then the edges and full openness seems to lack nitidezza.Obiettivo PRO series, treatment with nano crystals, beats total security corresponding Sigma and Canon series L.In some evidence was found even slightly sharper than big brother 14/24, which un'assurdità.Distorsione cost? Yes, as in all the super wide angle, but contained is easily corrected in post.Resistenza to flare: in spite of who says otherwise, is very good, even with the sun in the car (it's the first thing I tried ...), recommended, I do not think I will never part again! Brava, Nikon! |
 | sent on May 23, 2016 Pros: Engraving, weight, stabilizer Cons: A 16mm distorts much, reflections, lens hood of cheap plastic. Opinion: If you do not have the sun behind it happen (too) often get annoying reflections in the picture. A 16 mm barrel distortion is considerable, to make architecture is essential for the post corrective production but to nature photos and generally outdoors do not notice it. Af very fast and overall very engraved optics. I come from Canon the world, compared to the 16-35 f2.8 II is stronger and clearer, however, the lens hood is a much thinner plastic and seemingly delicate than the Canon. rnDirei that has a great value for money. |
 | sent on April 20, 2016 Pros: Color rendering, weight, versatility, VR. Cons: There a version 2.8, it would be a final lens. Opinion: Have been debated last between this lens and the superb 14-24, I finally persuaded by three factors: the ability to mount circular filters, weight, and not least the price. The quality is excellent, the sharpness slightly lower at 14-24 but still respectable. The focal 16-35 is really super versatile: from a good wide-angle lens is passed to a report, it very much appreciated the use bed, especially in the reception with its scenes of celebration ... it is always ready to capture the large table or frame a little bit narrower. I use it also for the night: although the opening is not as wide, the yield is still excellent. The Vr is quiet and efficient, does not hide the fact that for the same price, I would have preferred a 2.8 unregulated. In any case, we recommended as build quality. |
 | sent on February 24, 2016 Pros: Optical stabilized, precise autofocus, crisp, dry, engraved. superb detail. Ability to mount filters. High resistance to flare. Excellent chromaticism. Cons: F 2.8 would be better, but the VRII system is very efficient. Bulky and a little heavy, but it covers a FX sensor. Opinion: Bought after moving from DX to FX. I had 12 24 mm f 4.0 and 16 35 mm This is another planet. More precise, crisp, dry and really well stabilized. A 16 mm can not get razor sharp shots at 1/8 freehand. Heavier, but on the D800 body is well balanced, and this provides additional support. color accuracy by fear. Only 4.0 af some problems (minimum) at the edges, very low aberration, and perfectly settled in PS and LR. One of my most well-chosen purchases, in photographs of interiors and the urban landscape is a lens 360 degrees. |
 | sent on January 20, 2016 Pros: very sharp in the center at all focal lengths even at RT. Also perfect edges to small apertures to f8. VR effective. Compact and lightweight. Ability to mount screw-on filters. Saturated colors Cons: TA edges are not the best, but by using it almost always small apertures is not an issue for me. I think the main problem is that the flare with the sun in the frame is almost inevitable Opinion: I wrote almost all the Pros and Cons. The buy back for the use that I have to do (landscape and handyman travel) lacking a real alternative in the house in the Nikon range of focal lengths, in fact the brother 14-24 cost more, weigh more, not mounted filters screw and he suffers even more flare the 17-35 I was not convinced as sharpness and color the only time I got to try it. |
 | sent on November 16, 2015 Pros: Sharpness, colors, excursion but above all VR Cons: Distortion at the minimum focal but we are also at 16 mm ....... Opinion: Usually those who buy it claim to prefer it at 14-24 for the ability to use filters. I do not consider this bonus anything at all, we are in a digital world and with the possibilities of the post I find it almost delusional to use filters on modern optics! The 16-35 is a great piece, designed for digital, has nano crystall and a gorgeous and functional VR, is much more user friendly than 14-24 and, like the brother, exudes brilliant and well saturated colors, it almost seems like are polarized. The sharpness then is proverbial and, to those who complain about the edges, I would definitely recommend it on a 36 mpxl. At 16 mm the distortion begins to be visible but my lords, we are talking about a supergrandangolo and not a 300 mm! In my opinion, highly recommended, at a human price you find in the backpack all the wonders you need and with the plus of the sensational VR, you will not feel true to 1/15. Vote 10, no doubt! NOTE: The writer is not an influencer or a guru, nor does one download alt picturesfrom the network to impose on unlikely comparisons. For almost forty years, a passionate nikonist of photography and photographic material has been, and my opinion is not a gospel, but only the result of empirical experience. The objects I write really buy them, I play a few months and if I do not like them, but always and in any case of material at the moment in my possession. I do not make the copy paste of reviews taken here and there on the net, if I'm talking about an item it's just and because I had in the house the time it took (at least months) to try to figure it out. I often go against current, but this does not take my sleep, as far as possible I try to help young aspiring photographers who give a weight to their savings. But, I repeat, I do not bring the verb ... |
 | sent on October 06, 2015 Pros: good zoom range, sharpness, VR Cons: I do not know, I think is a good target Opinion: Using the lens at the amateur level I think it is a good choice for the intended use according to the excursion of the focal. Excellent balance coupled with the 750, fast in focus even in low light; the VR system prevents photo micromosse in certain circumstances otherwise the results would not be apprezzabili.rnConsiderata the wide range, a bit 'distortion to 16 mm there is given the value for money is a very good product and recommend it without prejudice. |
 | sent on September 18, 2015 Pros: Zoom range, sharpness, possibility to mount filters Cons: The edges are not the best of Fx Opinion: Lens with satisfaction that use of Fx, excellent zoom range, excellent stabilizer, even if it almost never use, excellent sharpness already 'in the TA centro.rnI edges are its only flaw, even at small apertures does not reach a level Sharpness acceptable professional level, however accettabilissimo level amatoriale.rnLa construction and 'plasticky, but well made, I quietly photographed with rain and hail with no fuss. They mount filters 77, as in all the objectives of high-end Nikon.rnConsigliato also on Dx, where 'the lens more' suitable x street, and where you have a good level of sharpness even on the extreme borders already 'in TA .rnrn |
 | sent on June 25, 2015 Pros: Compact, VR, sharpness, mounted filters, zoom range, light. Cons: distortion 16mm.- Opinion: They are about 6 months I use it and are more than happy - I mount that is on the D610 and D750 with both bodies yield and more than adequate. I thought at 14-24, but the inability to mount filters made me change my mind. I am not at all repentant. For the distortion (quite usual for wide angles) I try to pay attention during shooting, then there is always that PP does the rest. . The VR is very valid, it allows to take to 1/4 second to 16mm without having to resort to the easel. Surely perspective successful. |
 | sent on April 14, 2015 Pros: focal range, VR, constant aperture, use filters Cons: distortion Opinion: Using this lens 2 and a half years before I mounted on the D7000 and D750 now on; with both bodies I found myself in wonder, on DX I found it excellent for travel. The strengths of this lens are definitely the focal range and the VR, which allows shots even at 1/5 with no blur; is not too heavy and you carry around happily. the slight negative notes are slight loss of sharpness at the edges and distortion, although it is easily correctable PP must pay attention during shooting. |
 | sent on November 10, 2014 Pros: Fairly light and compact VR if needed, on average, fairly clear, useful focal length range, the possibility of using filters Cons: Distortion, sharpness at the edges fall Opinion: And 'certainly a zoom wide angle Nikon successful, either because of its compact size (neither a feather nor a brick), or for its focal length range, but above all (for those who do landscapes) for the ability to mount filters and polarizing plate. Often you opt for the 16-35 and the 14-24 no right to the use of filters (obviously at the expense of the quality of 14-24). I personally balance I'm happy with this lens, the only really negative note, to my taste, are the angles ... mushy and not very sharp. Let's say that the fall of quality at the edges of the distortion that bothers me most, however, about a little 'all lenses of this type. |
 | sent on November 10, 2014 Pros: Quite compact, very sharp, VR zoom range Cons: Distortion at 16mm Opinion: I have for over a year and use it on D800.rnE 'a great zoom, recommended for those who love grandangolari.rnTra the AFS G is one of the better ones built, made in Japan ..... I joined the equally rnLo valid 24-120mm / 4.rnMolto sharp at all focal lengths - the center and edges - even at full aperture, f5.6 to f8 and obviously improves ancora.rnIl VR is very efficient, shooting at 16mm to 1/4 second hand free, this allows, within certain limits, its own night-time use hand libera.rnUnico defect, but less problematic than it might seem, the barrel distortion at 16mm. To correct it, those times that really bothers you just a click. |
 | sent on April 05, 2014 Pros: sharpness to the edges, construction, ability to mount filters Cons: distortion at 16mm (but is physiological ... we're talking about a ipergrandangolare zoom) rnun little 'vignetting disappears but closing a diaphragm ..... Opinion: I bought this lens only for a week and I'm trying on D4S .... rnl'ho taken based on the great reviews I read here on the site and I must say that I am a little scared to read the last (thing red halos) so I did a test now posing bulb at ISO 8000 with a time of about 50 seconds ... it went well ... no problem sortarnquesto means that the targets are not all the same, unfortunately, and monitoring of nikon quality even though it is higher than that of the sigma is not a SINGLE control sample as it was and I think still for zeiss .... rnho also read that the edges are less sharp cousin's 18-35 ... mah .. . did not know him but as far as I can see the sharpness of the edges of this is equal to or greater than that of the prestigious 14-24 F: 2.8 I tried long ago on D700 .... rnrn |
 | sent on March 12, 2014 Pros: - Costruzionern-VRrn-ability to mount filters Cons: - Known problem of infiltration light on long-esposizionirn game of ring-mafrn the edges less sharp than the cheapest 18-35Grn-distortion 16mmrn-not just free from flare ... Opinion: I focus only on a very annoying defect and on a finding on this goal. rnDIFETTO unfortunately for the D600 as well as the 16-35 I had to send in assistance, the objective was in fact a known issue on exposures exceeding the 25 "and shooting at high ISO to a problem due to the VR, that even if remains switched off'''', the lens generates red halos in the shots that ruin the shots themselves. assistance in VR and I have replaced the proper light penetration (by what is written on the invoice), but now is back in service because they returned it to me that it is almost impossible to mount it on the bochettone SLR, I do not know why, but it's hard to be hooked. This defect halos / red streaks have been found by several other users (for example, there are many topics on the forum of dpreview and also an article on the website of Tom Hogan) and also my lens had precisely this annoying problem, I do not know if it is repairable as you read on the net co opinionsntrastanti, by a test on the fly that I did after the first surgery, however, this problem seemed to have disappeared (at least I hope). rnCONSTATAZIONE: several tests I've seen on the net, the new and more economical 18-35G is sharper at the edges (see eg here http://digilander.libero.it/Nordavind1709/bordo_destro_f4.jpg) while at the center sharpness is practically the same. The difference is especially noticeable at the edges at wide apertures. To his credit, however, the 16-35 is more wide and also has the image stabilizer (although precisely because of the problems), which made me lean towards the purchase of this lens instead of the 18-35. rnrnPer add that last (because someone claims to the contrary) unfortunately, as evidenced by many expert reviews, the lens flare is not really free, but ... |
 | sent on March 10, 2014 Pros: Sharpness, VR, money, possibility to use filters. Cons: Game focus ring, size in length, high distortion at 16mm on FX but sistemabile in PP. Opinion: On my D7000 I really made a lot of shots, even in parallel on the D700, and I can only speak bene.rnL'obiettivo Nikkor AF-S DX 16-35 VR format, is an excellent wide-angle to normal zoom (actually a 24-52 ) showing a good, excellent and very good resolution in the center at the edge / corner, f5.6? f8? f11 will get the best risultati.rnLa distortion is well under control, the same is true for vignetting and aberration cromatica.rnLa build quality is excellent and in line with other professional goals Nikkor, because this perspective is already considered PRO, f4 whole zummata. rnSecondo me how sharp the corners -35mm the Nikon 16 f / 4 is better than the Nikon 17 -35mm f / 2.8 and the fantastic Nikon 24 -70mm f / 2.8, in most mounts a VR that works very well in low-light situations, and the lightness of the Nikon 16 -35 places him as my best wide-angle FX.rnUn Another quality that I think the reward is the ability to mount the filters, unlike the Nikon 14-24the lens has an almost flat front lens and the ability to mount a filter of 77 mm, thanks to a system of focusing interna.rnNon is an optical defect-free, in FX format distortion is quite heavy to 16 mm at the end of the lens produces a bit of vignetting, nothing that can not be removed later in PP, less evident in the format DX.rnSul my Nikon 16 -35 I noticed that the ring of focus shows a little 'game not in focus, but in the ring for the focus, when you rotate the dial to the focus, it takes a couple of millimeters of movement until the unit of focus actually follows the ring focus; this can be annoying when trying to focus manually or in fact shooting with Live View.rnMa I can also advise that if you use it only on the DX format, however, the 16-35 has a rival for me very good optical Nikkor AF- S DX VR 16-85; even if it has a little distortion and vignetting, offers focal range much larger than the16-35 excellent sharpness, lighter, less bulky and has a price considerably inferiore.rnIn any case, the AF-S Nikkor 16-35 f4 VR, is an optical consiglio.rn |
 | sent on December 26, 2012 Pros: optical quality, sharpness, weight, versatility and usability of filter, stabilizer, construction, price Cons: maf improved ring, lens hood, a bit of barrel distortion. Opinion: 6ograve; too "cheap" in my sighted (much, much better than Canon) and the focus ring to focus. The latter I would have preferred more precise and muffled in the presentation. |
 | sent on November 08, 2012 Pros: Excellent image contrast, sharpness extreme. Ring convenient and accurate. Ability to mount filters Cons: I can not fault Opinion: I think it's an excellent lens, magnifica.rnIn any occasion behaves very well, and the fact that you can mount filters makes it unique. Also excellent stabilizer! The backlight handles them very well and the outlines of objects are well contrasted and marcati.rnTropicalizzazione and overall strength: 9 out of 10! Very low cost compared to big brother! |
 | sent on October 18, 2012 Pros: Extreme sharpness already at RT, fantastic colors, resistance to flare, construction, excellent stabilizer Cons: Slight vignetting at f4 correctable with one click post Opinion: The landscape and reportage are my favorite genres. For a long time I wanted a quality wide angle that would allow me to mount filters. I had read mixed reviews on this lens but never having had the chance to try it I was a little uncertain about the purchase. In the end I am convinced, in preference to the 14-24mm that does not allow me to mount filters vite.rnRisultato: I was amazed! Tested both at f8 can not be distinguished. Sharpest already at room temperature, has a resistance to flare impressive for a wide angle. The build quality is as good as you would expect from a perspective professionale.rnIl VR is a show allowed me to take home photos taken freehand to 1 second! RnConsigliatissimo! |
 | sent on June 19, 2012 Pros: Sharp, light weight (for me), effective stabilizer, sealed, using filters Cons: Slight vignetting at TA FF but easily corregibile PP Opinion: after taking the D700 was a problem using the Nikon 12-24 f4 as DX, so I decided to take a wide angle for FX. In store I was able to test both the lens in question that the 14-24 but in the end I opted for the 16-35 because lighter and the stabilization system that helps a lot in certain situations. Other advantage is not negligible is the possibility of using filters with screw while the big brother you must svenare with those in the plate Lee |
 | sent on June 02, 2012 Pros: Sharp, sharp, sharp. Beautiful colors. VR perfectly ridiculous price for the quality it offers. Cons: Slight vignetting on FF f / 4, if it is a problem because the machine would correct itself already. Opinion: Wide. Engraved from edge to edge since f / 6 is magna Mr. 14-24 on d800 f / 8. The stabilizer is very useful and finally present a wide-angle high level. The colors struck me. While all grand'angoli always tend to be a bit 'cold this makes the color 1:1. The chromatic side, however, correct in the car is very light, which is rare for a wide angle. With modules specially disappears completely from edge to edge. You lose a bit 'focus from 14-24 to 16-35, but the quality is impeccable even more than 2/3 of the field at a ridiculous price for the quality it offers. Compact and lightweight, accepts 77mm filters without causing vignetting. Very resistant, if not immune, to ghosts and flares. |
 | sent on January 31, 2012 Pros: Extreme sharpness, stabilizer new generation extremely useful, lighter brother 14-24, ability to mount protective filters, tropicalized money Cons: a little 'vignetting at wider aperture but corregibile with PS Opinion: As the wide-angle optics ... my favorite and also a fan of bad weather to make special shots, my layer (for quality) 14-24 has the protruding lens and then in my opinion (for my character) is not suitable to deal with rain, snow, etc.. The other day I bought the 16-35 and listen, listen, I was impressed by its resolution at the center and at the corners. I think, after several tests, which is higher than the house also homologous competitor with zoom lenses have always been problematic in the corners. This lens has also been chosen by the great nature photographer John Shaw. I recommend this lens to all those who want a professional zoom to a more affordable price ... |
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.May Beauty Be Everywhere Around Me
