With all due respect, I've followed and valued your lens reviews for a couple of years now, but your review of this Nikon lens seems far off track from any others I've read.
Is it possible you got a bad copy to test?
In fact many old timer Nikon pros (well-known landscaper John Shaw for one)and advanced amateurs have switched from the old master 17-35 f/2.8 to this lens full time.
Just curious.
Love your site!
Bartman
I noticed the same "problem" (I don't know if can be called a problem). But I also noticed that all other reviews of the 16-35mm f4 were based on D700, rather than on D3x as did by PZ. So I don't know if the apparent diffrerent results/conclusions arised from the difference in camera sensors.
Lenstip tests lenses on D3x, but the 16-35mm f4 lens was not tested by lenstip yet.
Frank
I am guessing you are not liking the weaker corner performance at 16mm which PZ found? Because the strong barrel distortion is a given, and I doubt other sources would deny that.
The not sharp corners of the 16-35mm are very clearly visible just by looking at them, here 16mm stopped down to f8 on 24mp:
http://www.opticallimits.com/nikon_ff/492-nikkor_afs_1635_4_ff#
So it is clear Markus' findings are as expected.
Now for the "bad copy" idea.
This copy clearly has soft corners (at least 3, the sky one on the top right is not verifiable). And this is 16mm, closed down to f7.1, on 12mp D700:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/barrypeterson/4994519498/sizes/o/in/photostream/
Do you have any other sources which show unprocessed, full resolution images at 16mm, which show much better results?
I believe Mr Shaw has 2 D3Xs so he should be in a position to know how the 16-35 performs.
On the D300 my 16-35 seems OK.
Actually, I haven't used it much but hope to do some serious stuff when I get the D800.
PZ getting a bad copy? Umm, let me think....
I have searched for John Shaw testing the corners at 16mm, but I have no found any tests online. May just be my google skills, though.
Before this escalates: the two different reviews (D3x, D7000) were performed several months apart and with different lenses. I used the lens I tested on the D7000 to verifiy the initial measurements on the D3x and found the 2nd lens to perform nearly identical.
So, I have no reason to question the results of both reviews.
-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1332415022' post='16917']
I have searched for John Shaw testing the corners at 16mm, but I have no found any tests online. May just be my google skills, though.
[/quote]
Never said John Shaw tested had it. I said he had switched to it as have many in forums at DPReview, Fred Miranda, photo.net and such.
And yes, all the tests mention the heinous weaknesses at 16mm and some at 35. However, everyone who uses it says it's brilliant between 18 or 19 and 30mm.
[quote name='Bartman' timestamp='1332425886' post='16925']
Never said John Shaw tested had it. I said he had switched to it as have many in forums at DPReview, Fred Miranda, photo.net and such.
And yes, all the tests mention the heinous weaknesses at 16mm and some at 35. However, everyone who uses it says it's brilliant between 18 or 19 and 30mm.
[/quote]
Well, when I look at the PZ results, the lens performs quite nicely at the measured 21 and 28mm settings. Then what makes you think there is something wrong with the test sample?
Everyone who has used the lens knows the weaknesses at 16 and 35mm. Actually, it is only really sharp between 20 and 30mm. I sold mine because of it. Serves no purpose to have a zoom cum prime that is heavier and less sharp than the primes. I like my 20mm f2.8 better and it is not perfect. I am starting to think that the 24f1.4G and the 35f1.4G is the right combination. For now, I have swiched to a 24-120 and a 20mm and they are a better combination for me than the 16-35 and a 24-70.
As for PZ tests being faulty, I have not found one yet! That does not mean there could not be any, but.......!
Yes, everyone agrees that at 16 it is very week. But 18-30 are quite good and 24 actually better than the 17-35 f/2.8 or 24-70 f/2.8 in some tests at certain f/stops.
Nearly every reviewer suggests the 17-35 f/2.8 has been surpassed. That's enough for me.
Also see: http://mansurovs.com/nikon-16-35mm-f4-vr-review
All the best, over and out!
bart
