| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Nikon 16-35 review
Scott A. Schneider, Photographer
 |
Minneapolis | MN | USA | Posted: 2:50 PM on 06.10.10 |
| ->> If you own a Nikon 16-35, I'm interested in hearing your opinion of the lens. |
|
Matt Cashore, Photographer
|
South Bend | IN | USA | Posted: 3:05 PM on 06.10.10 |
->> I've been waiting to see this in the "Equipment Review" section so I can post my comments there. On a scale of 1-10 I'd give it an 8.5. Why? It's inexplicably huge. I also own the Canon 17-40 f4 and it's half the size (and weight...and price...) of the Nikon. Maybe VR adds that much gadgetry, dunno, but it seems like for as big as the Nikon is it could be an f2.8.
Optically I have no complaints. The Nikon, as expected, is sharper than its Canon compadre, but--going back to the size issue--to take advantage of that sharpness you have to carry the thing. I just got back from a long-ish trip to Uganda. I wanted to take the Nikon but ended up taking my Canon kit (5D II, 17-40 f4 and 70-200 f4) due entirely to weight considerations. |
|
Matt Cashore, Photographer
|
South Bend | IN | USA | Posted: 3:16 PM on 06.10.10 |
| ->> I should clarify...just saying "it's inexplicably huge" isn't terribly helpful. The 16-35 f4 is almost exactly the same size as the 24-70 f2.8. (Sans hood.) Hope that helps. |
|
Nic Coury, Photographer
|
Monterey | CA | | Posted: 3:48 PM on 06.10.10 |
->> I bought one for my D700/D300s for video on the latter camera, partly due to VR.
It's very light and stupid sharp.
Images are nice and contrast-y, though has a bit of distortion on the wide end (16mm-18mm) on the full-frame body, but that is too be expected.
I still can't believe how light it is! Handles well too.
9/10. |
|
Dylan Lynch, Photographer, Assistant
|
Edmonton | AB | Canada | Posted: 4:08 PM on 06.10.10 |
->> Extremely sharp, contrast is excellent, as is build quality. It is big, but VR really does add a ton of size/equipment inside of the lens.
The most amazing part? Sharp handheld images at 1/2 second.. that's really strange to be able to do. |
|
Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer
|
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 5:40 PM on 06.10.10 |
->> Sounds like Matt needs to hit the weight room, or Nic needs to lay off the steroids.
Here are some actual numbers:
16-35/f4 VR Nikon: 24 oz
17-35/f2.8 Nikon: 26.3 oz
24-70/f2.8 Nikon: 31.7 oz
17-40/f4 Canon: 17.7 oz
16-35/f2.8 Canon: 22.6 oz
Conclusion: Real Men shoot Nikon glass! |
|
Nic Coury, Photographer
|
Monterey | CA | | Posted: 6:18 PM on 06.10.10 |
->> "performance-enhancing" pills. Not steroids...
I dunno, it sure feels a hell of a lot lighter than my 17-35, which I sold to my office. |
|
Chuck Steenburgh, Photographer
|
Lexington | VA | USA | Posted: 7:54 PM on 06.10.10 |
| ->> I remember how much lighter a Kevlar helmet felt after wearing a steel pot, back when I was in the Army. Better balance and design can make a slight difference in weight feel much less. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|