[mst]

Quite good... certainly much better than the AF-D 18-35 (ok, that wasn't a difficult task to achieve):

http://www.opticallimits.com/nikon_ff/82...18353545ff

-- Markus

[Brightcolours]

What did this lens cost you? 

 

It seems to outperform the 16-35mm f4 VR at the wide end (just by looking at the 16mm figures and the 21mm figures, I estimate the 18-35mm to do as good or a tad better at 18mm) resolution wise. And CA is a little lower as well. 

 

Even at 35mm the differences are minimal as well... That makes this new "cheapo" quite a bargain?

[felix]

Thanks for the review!

 

The results look quite nice, but distortion really seems to be the new CA  :lol: 

I'd probably prefer a prime (with a little less distortion), but I'm not really into ultra-wides anyway... 

[evalf]

Thanks for the test!

[Klaus]

What did this lens cost you? 

 

It seems to outperform the 16-35mm f4 VR at the wide end (just by looking at the 16mm figures and the 21mm figures, I estimate the 18-35mm to do as good or a tad better at 18mm) resolution wise. And CA is a little lower as well. 

 

Even at 35mm the differences are minimal as well... That makes this new "cheapo" quite a bargain?

 

No VR, less ambitious max. aperture at 35mm, smaller range. Not a big surprise IMHO.

[mst]

What did this lens cost you?

Nothing... it was a loaner

-- Markus

[nandadevieast]

Thanks M, you're testing it on DX also?

I just checked the review of reputed 16-35 F4, and i find this lens to be better surprisingly...

 

Klaus: No VR, less ambitious max. aperture at 35mm, smaller range. Not a big surprise IMHO.

Then why are not all consumer zooms better than their professional counterparts? (means, the pro zoom needed to be better, what with such an expensive price tag...)

 

If i got to shoot this at F8, then why not get a 20/2.8....

[mst]

Thanks M, you're testing it on DX also?

Sure.

If i got to shoot this at F8, then why not get a 20/2.8....

Well... if you limit yourself to a single focal length and aperture, yes, this may make sense. All others probably prefer to also enjoy the flexibility of the focal range (18-19mm and 21-35mm), as well as apertures of f/3.5, f/4, f/4.5, f/5.6,...

Regarding the 16-35/4 VR: as Klaus already mentioned, it's a more challenging design because of constant speed (f/4), a wider zoom range (don't underestimate those 2 mm) and better build quality. And in addition, it features VR, a quite rare feature in this lens segment. You may of course argue if you really need optical stabilization in a wide angle lens, but if you belong to the (likely limited) group of shooters with a use case for this lens, there's no alternative.

-- Markus