Hands On: AF-S 16-35mm VR

[aim54x]

I came into work today and was surprised that we received a copy of the AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm F/4 VR. Now being me I could not resist giving this lens a once over.

So, mounted on a D3000 (first camera I grabbed) I had a peek.

Thoughts?
-SHARP - great in the centre all the way to the edges, a bit soft at edges at F4, but very good by F/5.6
-DISTORTION - noticeable, but not bad barrel distortion at 16mm, only seen because I shot some tiles
-CHROMATIC ABBERATION - present at the edges, but very small amounts and not something you would notice in usage.

I WANT ONE!!!

So if you were thinking about this instead of the 14-24 do have a look. PS. Build is very solid, rubber seal is present, both zoom and focus rings are nice...very 24-70 like, but the lens feels like it is made from plastic rather than metal

NOTE I only had a very brief play with this lens and only took half dozen or so photos looking for these things in particular, so I do believe that you wont notice these things as much in normal use

[chrisk]

thanks for the heads up cam. everything i've seen from it IQ wise is very impressive. looks pretty big though; i've seen some photos of it next to a 24-70 and it looks to only be fractionally smaller and its actually larger than the 17-35/2.8. to me, i saw this, (being an f4 lens), as an opportunity to have a nice UWA lens that is a fair degree smaller. that doesnt seem to be the case at first glance. i look forward to having a play whenener it lands although the 24/1.4 is infinately more appealing.

[aim54x]

looks pretty big though; i've seen some photos of it next to a 24-70 and it looks to only be fractionally smaller and its actually larger than the 17-35/2.8. to me, i saw this, (being an f4 lens), as an opportunity to have a nice UWA lens that is a fair degree smaller. that doesnt seem to be the case at first glance.

Chris, the IQ is impressive, but it aint a 14-24. Size wise, it is a lot lighter (to me anyway) than then the 24-70 athought roughly the same size....it does have a rather pathetic looking hood, just like the 70-200mm VR II.

[chrisk]

photozones review is up and its pretty lukewarm.
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/492-ni ... _1635_4_ff

to me it reads pretty similar to a 17-40L so i wont be disappointed optically cos i enjoyed the 17-40 alot. again...the size is surprising to me but what i am more concerned about is nikon seem to have again fallen short of the mark in AF speed. this is a brand new lens, it should not be met with reviews that say that the AF is "reasonably fast".

if the 24/1.4 is going to get the same sort of lukewarm response in the AF stakes then bloody hell...

[aim54x]

Well can I note that it looks really good on DX!!!

I think we all had really high hopes with this lens after the 14-24 so it is not unlikely that it doesnt meet those expectations. I cant wait till more reviews come out.

[MATT]

I was thinking of down grading and economizing to the 16-35 from the 14-24 and 17-35. Look forward to more feedback on this lens also.

MATT