NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: simsurace on February 01, 2016, 18:25:48
-
I own the 16-35 AF-S VR etc. lens.
Because of its bulk I seldom take it out, which is a shame.
In addition, I'm not always blown away by the results of this lens and would like something more consistent in that range, if possible. I had it checked by Nikon and they told me that it is within spec.
I have numerous primes in that range, so I'm not looking for that, but a convenient zoom which covers the range in question. I'm shooting on a D600 (24mp).
I wonder whether the lighter and less expensive 18-35 AF-S can compete.
Has anyone here had experience with both lenses? Have you sold one over the other or kept both? What were the relative strengths and weaknesses? Did you notice the lack of Nano coating with the 18-35 when shooting in backlit scenarios, for instance?
I would use the lens mainly for landscapes. I therefore value decent sharpness corner-to-corner as well as high contrast. I don't need the VR much since I work from a tripod most of the time.
-
I have used various 18-35 models and always struck by their optical quality as being much better than expected.
-
Last summer I owned both lenses for a few months. Although I was always satisfied with the result of the 16-35 I never liked the weight and the bulk.
Not much difference in IQ (the 16-35 is marginal better). I don't miss the VR at that FL, only sometimes the 16mm.
-
Simone, i agree with Bjorn the 18-35 is a cracker! I PXed mine for the 16-35 which I am sure it was a mistake. Can't win em all!
-
From what I heared in Various occasions the 18-35 is cheap small and delivers a decent IQ.
I shot the 16-35 intensly for a week.
IQ OK with Postproduction. Very bulky. Did not like it at all.
-
Thanks to all who commented. There don't seem to be any major negatives to the 18-35 vs. the 16-35. I will therefore try one out and decide whether it can replace its bigger sibling.
-
The NG member Dave (Patterson) has an excellent sample of AF-S 18-35 whose images posted here always amaze me.
-
cannot comment much on the 18-35 since i never owned or used one. but i can vouch for the 16-35mm. (sadly, i sold it for the 55 1.2 and the 501.2) :o :o :o
never really thought much about the VR until i shot this picture. I am not sure If i can get this guy in perfect focus for this if not for the VR. it is kind of big but that is fine for me and 16mm is still something to consider vs 18mm. i had salt water splashed on it etc its still worked fine. images were sharp as well. the constant f/4 was also a big help as I expose manually a lot of times.
-
The NG member Dave (Patterson) has an excellent sample of AF-S 18-35 whose images posted here always amaze me.
The trouble is always knowing whether the copy is good or the lens is good in general. I might simply have ended up with a sub-par copy of the 16-35, even though Nikon said everything is within spec.
I'm quite sure that one could not tell from web-sized images whether the lens is better than mine, so I just have to try one. :)
-
cannot comment much on the 18-35 since i never owned or used one. but i can vouch for the 16-35mm. (sadly, i sold it for the 55 1.2 and the 501.2) :o :o :o
never really thought much about the VR until i shot this picture. I am not sure If i can get this guy in perfect focus for this if not for the VR. it is kind of big but that is fine for me and 16mm is still something to consider vs 18mm. i had salt water splashed on it etc its still worked fine. images were sharp as well. the constant f/4 was also a big help as I expose manually a lot of times.
That's quite a commitment towards fast manual glass!
Great shot!
-
That's quite a commitment towards fast manual glass!
Great shot!
thank you,sir! was surprised that the 16-35 nailed it with it's so-so AF, the VR just made it all work :o :o :o
yes, the 16-35 has been sitting in my drybox doing nothing since I got married. having a baby does not help as well and now I cannot hike as much as I did because i have to bring my family with me on weekends if I can. My baby will only be this adorable for a short time and i want to be cherish that time the best that I can :'( :'( :'(
i believe that the 16-35VR is made in china. now, I do understand that made in china does not mean much these days but that might add to the problem that you are having. i also have a similar situation as you with the 50 1.2, I bought one brand new in december and the CA at 1.2 is unacceptable at minimum focus distance. I compared it with other 50 1.2's as well as the Nikon office's own copy and mine just failed the CA test. i know this lens very well and it should not be like this. just this morning, Nikon called and said that there was nothing wrong with my lens and I insisted that they send it to the factory for recalibration. Nikon's QC has been going down lately that I stopped buying new lenses a few years back. my last brand new purchase was a 50mm ART (what I call the scheize lens) which is my money lens.
now, if anybody is going to spend that amount of money on a 16-35VR, I might also suggest the excellent tamron UWA zoom at the expense of not having a filter ring. this is unacceptable to me since i love using filters for landscape but might be just fine for other people...
-
now, if anybody is going to spend that amount of money on a 16-35VR, I might also suggest the excellent tamron UWA zoom at the expense of not having a filter ring. this is unacceptable to me since i love using filters for landscape but might be just fine for other people...
Yep, filters are a must for me. And that Tamron is a heavy beast, I already think that the 16-35 is too heavy.
-
a prime lens would be the answer(I have a 20mm voigtlander, it seels like 3 stacks of oreos tall!). :o :o :o
sorry if it's outside of your choices :P maybe i can convince you hahaha
-
Another vote for the 18-35.
Very happy with mine 8)
-
a prime lens would be the answer(I have a 20mm voigtlander, it seels like 3 stacks of oreos tall!). :o :o :o
sorry if it's outside of your choices :P maybe i can convince you hahaha
Well, as I wrote in my OP, I already have numerous wide-angle primes, so no convincing is needed! I have a 20, 24, 28, and 35 and every one of them fills a purpose. :D
The zoom is for cases where I have to haul other stuff (such as when backpacking, when I have to carry tent, stove, gas, food, sleeping bag etc.) or when I want to bring just one or two lenses. The 20/1.8 is not much smaller and lighter than the 18-35, but the latter is more versatile at the expense of the maximum aperture. For normal landscape photography during the day and on a tripod, the zoom allows me to make more shots and also reduces the number of lens changes, which is good when there is a lot of dirt and dust around.
In the past, instead of the 16-35 I have often ended up bringing along the 20+35. Together, they are of course heavier than the zoom, but they are easier to arrange in the bag and when mounted on the camera, they are less bulky.
-
Another vote for the 18-35.
Very happy with mine 8)
Thanks!
-
I see. Read some reviews and saw some images and they do look good as far as i can see
-
They are also cheap, saw one here for ¥50,000 in like new condition with everything. I was however turned off by the lack of aperture ring...(macro purposes)
-
I ended up buying a 18-35 two months ago. I already have made a couple of hundreds of shots, but I've never taken out both the 18-35 and 16-35 at the same time. My impression is that the 18-35 does almost the same job, but it's much lighter and smaller.
Ok, today I went for a walk and made some comparison shots between the 16-35/4 and the 18-35/3.5-4.5.
All shots are on the D600 at base ISO and on a tripod. VR was off for the 16-35. I developed in ACR, CA correction was on, otherwise no lens corrections. Moderate sharpening (amount 40, radius 0.8) applied equally on all the shots.
Scene 1: Close focus, bokeh, backlight
Because the physical length of the lenses is different, I ended up shooting a different focal length, but the shots are fairly similar and have the same aperture.
18-35, 35mm, f/5.6, 1/350s
(http://www.suracephoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/D600_32785.jpg)
16-35, 28mm, f/5.6, 1/350s
(http://www.suracephoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/D600_32792.jpg)
Commentary: Very similar rendering, bokeh reasonably smooth, good contrast, no flare, decent sharpness.
Scene 2: Mid- to far-field, extended DOF, fine detail, corner sharpness
18-35, 20mm, f/11, 1/10s
(http://www.suracephoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/D600_32799.jpg)
16-35, 20mm, f/11, 1/10s
(http://www.suracephoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/D600_32797.jpg)
Commentary: Again, very similar rendering with minor geometric differences. Both lenses render nice colors.
100% crops from the upper right corners reveal slight differences:
18-35:
(http://www.suracephoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/D600_32799crop.jpg)
16-35:
(http://www.suracephoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/D600_32797crop.jpg)
Commentary: The 18-35 renders the corners of the image with more sharpness and less geometric distortion.
Scene 3: Infinity (or close), wide aperture corner performance.
18-35, 24mm, f/4, 1/500s
(http://www.suracephoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/D600_32813.jpg)
16-35, 24mm, f/4, 1/500s
(http://www.suracephoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/D600_32809.jpg)
Crops from upper right corner:
18-35
(http://www.suracephoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/D600_32813crop.jpg)
16-35
(http://www.suracephoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/D600_32809crop.jpg)
Commentary: Again, the 18-35 delivers more sharpness in the corners of the frame.
Scene 4: Distortion
18-35, 30mm, f/11, 1/8s
(http://www.suracephoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/D600_32854.jpg)
16-35, 28mm, f/11, 1/8s
(http://www.suracephoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/D600_32852.jpg)
Commentary: Neither of the lenses is distortion-free around 30mm. The 18-35 shows barrel-type and the 16-35 shows pincushion-type distortion. In general, both lenses have distortions which are fairly easy to correct. The 18-35 is always barrel, the 16-35 changes from barrel to pincushion and is almost distortion-free somewhere close to 24mm, which is quite nice, but not tremendously important.
Interim conclusion: I'm not yet completely sure, but I'm leaning towards selling the 16-35 and keeping the 18-35. So far, I haven't encountered a situation in which the 18-35 disappointed me and for me the 16-35 doesn't really show many advantages in my type of shooting. The 18-35 impresses me with the sharpness even close to wide-open and in the corners. The contrast, color etc. is almost indistinguishable from the 16-35. Moreover, it is smaller and lighter, which makes it easier to carry and use.
Any other observations? Thoughts?
-
I have a clear understanding that the added features like VR or shorter focal length in wide go with decreased IQ.
So:
Either get a good copy of the 18-35 or the real thing 14-24 or a GREAT compromise 17-35.
Difficult choise I know.
-
The corner performance of the 18-35 @24 seems definitely better than that from the 16-35. My guess is that the 18-35 AF-S will be the better landscape lens of the two. The AF-S 18-35/3.5-4.5 actually looks to be a very nice lens.
I'm actually a bit surprised that a DSLR lens shows corner smearing like this, since it should have no problems with an oblique ray angle at all. There are gode WA zooms with image stabilzers built in (Canon & Sony) so that's no excuse for the Nikkor 16-35/4.
-
Must be sample variation? I had a 16-35 for review and it was sharp all over the frame. No corner smearing. Also had decent IR and VR performance.
The latest 18-35 incarnation also was a very good performer. I had difficulties telling the two apart.
-
I have a clear understanding that the added features like VR or shorter focal length in wide go with decreased IQ.
So:
Either get a good copy of the 18-35 or the real thing 14-24 or a GREAT compromise 17-35.
Difficult choise I know.
I don't know, the VR and shorter focal length also come with additional bulk and presumably better glass. I would not have expected the result.
The 14-24 does not fulfill my requirements for a light and small solution.
The corner performance of the 18-35 @24 seems definitely better than that from the 16-35. My guess is that the 18-35 AF-S will be the better landscape lens of the two. The AF-S 18-35/3.5-4.5 actually looks to be a very nice lens.
I'm actually a bit surprised that a DSLR lens shows corner smearing like this, since it should have no problems with an oblique ray angle at all. There are gode WA zooms with image stabilzers built in (Canon & Sony) so that's no excuse for the Nikkor 16-35/4.
Yes, it does.
My understanding is that corner smearing would be an issue if the sharply projected image suffers due to an angle of incidence which is too shallow. Here, it seems that the image is already smeared, either because of decentering or by design.
Must be sample variation? I had a 16-35 for review and it was sharp all over the frame. No corner smearing. Also had decent IR and VR performance.
The latest 18-35 incarnation also was a very good performer. I had difficulties telling the two apart.
My first thought after getting the 16-35 and seeing the corner performance was that it must be due to some defect. But Nikon told me that everything is within spec. I thought I was expecting too much from a wide angle zoom. But now the 18-35 shows that more is possible.
I also have difficulties telling them apart from the entire image, but with my samples, close inspection gives away which is which.
-
"Within spec" must have a very liberal definition nowadays. :(
-
I own a 16-35mm f/4 VR which is "perfect" for my work environment i.e. photography on "moving" platforms such as boats and planes. The choice for me was between the aforementioned and the 14-24mm; the latter front lens being too exposed for what I'm doing. With regard to the quality: almost perfect to my standards; VR is for me a must.
I'm definitely not a believer in varying quality, given the quality control process; but this is another debate.
-
The 18-35 has a very serious weight and size advantage over the
other candidates and is is also quite cheap.
What MFloyd says means for me that faults detected in a
sample you buy can and must be corrected by Nikon for new
items or within a certain amount of time free of charge.
My new 1.8/50G was seriously decentered. They fixed it.
For older and used items it is more tricky because the item
price is often smaller than the fixing costs. Also Nikon can not
be held responsible for a lens biography with possible mishaps.
-
...
I'm definitely not a believer in varying quality, given the quality control process; but this is another debate.
My best estimate of failure rates for Nikkors is < 2%. This figure is based on testing hundreds of lenses over the years. Typical failures are decentering from misaligned lens elements, excessive dirt inside the lens assembly (more cosmetic than a true annoyance, though), or communication errors between camera and lens.
I have had a lens (15/5.6) so badly decentered that the factory could not get the lens into acceptable shape even after several trips back to Nikon Japan. An AFS 400/2.8 straight out off a sealed factory box couldn't focus at all and probably had a flipped element somewhere inside. Zoom lenses with decentering issues are not unusual, leading to very different performance in either end of their focal range, or part of the frame being unsharp. The last time I observed this was with a brand new 70-200/4.
I'm not saying Nikkors are badly made, not at all, but denying the existence of quality variation is futile. It certainly exists.
Quality control these days is different from way back in time. Now the production relies more on proactive methods, viz. making designs that are much less sensitive to the inevitable component variation, and letting the customer be the final judge for quality.
-
@Bjørn: off course, I have not your in-depth sight. 2% being small, but big on the other side; probably the best ratio in economic terms.
-
I used the figure '<2%'. Probably lower on the expensive low-volume stuff and might be higher on the mass volume items. The estimate is as good as I can get from own observations.
The important aspect is that the failure rate is *not *zero.
-
I own a 16-35mm f/4 VR which is "perfect" for my work environment i.e. photography on "moving" platforms such as boats and planes. The choice for me was between the aforementioned and the 14-24mm; the latter front lens being too exposed for what I'm doing. With regard to the quality: almost perfect to my standards; VR is for me a must.
I'm happy that your 16-35 is serving you well!
-
@simsurace
@Bjørn
Thank your for your feed-back.
-
I have a 16-35 that seems sharp into the corners and generally very sharp .....I don't mind carrying a few extra grams to have constant f4, and 16mm.
But I am not a landscape photographer, so my priorities may vary from your use.
Cheers
-
Another question, Simone: Would the humble AF-D 18-35 also be a candidate? It is even smaller and cheaper, yet many praise its IQ.
-
Another question, Simone: Would the humble AF-D 18-35 also be a candidate? It is even smaller and cheaper, yet many praise its IQ.
Because of sample variations (seems especially so in the "consumer" lenses) it is a bit hard to generalize from my one experience, but I will relate it anyway.
I had the AF-D version which seemed OK on the D80 that I used it with initially. When I moved up to the D600 "full-frame" sensor it looked rather soft overall so I traded it off.
Later I bought the AFS version which seems substantially sharper, with more contrast than the earlier version on the D6XX.
I believe that at one point Dave Paterson made a similar observation, but that was at least a couple of years ago.
-
This discussion re-started at a great moment. Thanks Simone and all who've contributed, this is very informative. Like Simone I am looking for a workhorse wide zoom. Over the past weekend I rented a 17-35 mm f/2.8, to see how it worked on a D810. In my case I'll be using it a lot to record geological sampling sites, which is closest to landscape photography. My previous camera was the D7000 (crop sensor), which paired extremely well with a Tokina 11-16 mm f/2.8 for this purpose. The 17-35 looks like a good one for me: The focal range is right. I like the 2.8 max aperture, and the manual aperture ring compared to the 16-35 f/4. The build is rugged compared to both the 16-35 f/4 and 18-35 variable aperture zoom, which is important for the use it will get. I actually like the heft of a big lens, and would happily carry a 17-35 in the field. It's a lot lighter than rocks.
However, the copy I rented performed poorly. Below is a test scene at 17 mm and f/2.8, and some 100% crops. The backlight is strong and the sky is at least a stop overexposed in places, which helps show up focus errors and chromatic aberration, which makes this a tough test. The others come from the left side, top, and top-right of the frame. I see lots of chromatic aberration, and distant objects around the edge of the frame are poorly focused. I couldn't get an acceptable image of this scene at aperture wider than f/8. The lens performed slightly better at 28 mm (OK by f/5.6), and better again at 35 mm. Note - Image processed in Adobe Camera Raw with calibration set to camera-neutral. All other settings left at their defaults (no chromatic aberration corrections, sharpening USM 25% / radius 1.0).
I have difficulty believing that a correctly working copy of this lens would perform so poorly. I wonder if it had been beaten up a bit in its (long) rental history. However, I'd appreciate feedback from those who've used the 17-35. Is this is standard on a high-DPI camera, or was I using a poor or damaged copy? Also, can anyone comment on the optical performance of the 17-35 stopped down to f/4, compared to the 16-35 and 18-35 at their wide-open settings?
Thanks, all advice appreciated.
-
Another question, Simone: Would the humble AF-D 18-35 also be a candidate? It is even smaller and cheaper, yet many praise its IQ.
t
What would be the advantage? Sorry, you already named two.
I've heard that it doesn't really cut the mustard on hi-res bodies since it's an old design. But I guess this might be overstated.
At this point I already own the modern 18-35 now so the easiest thing is just to sell off the 16-35. Getting a third lens into the mix is too much hassle. But thanks anyway for the suggestion.
-
Beryllium, the test shots are wide open?
I don't have any personal experience with the 17-35, but I would have expected less than stellar performance wide open in the corners of a wide zoom from that era. In the case of the 16-35 I was disappointed because from a much more modern design (more modern even than the 14-24 which is very renowned) I was expecting very good performance even in the corners. Wide-angles are the lenses that have most benefitted from recent developments in optical engineering, we are now seeing very good wide-angles even from third-party manufacturers thanks to cheaper aspheric lenses, advances in computing etc.
A quick comparison at the-digital-picture confirms your findings: the 17-35 at f/4 is much more blurry in the corners than the new 18-35. I cannot say whether your copy is even worse than that.
-
Beryllium: I feel the detail rendering of the 17-35/2.8 Nikkor seems pretty good in your examples. IIRC it was introduced with the F5. Someone would have to show me a film that can resolve this amount of details.
If you are not depending on JPEG ooc you can easily get rid of lens distortion and abberation in post processing.
I did not buy this lens because I could not bear lens distortion in the view finder. I felt sea sick. I later tried and bought the 1.4/24G which has next to no distortion in the finder.
Simone: The 14-24/2.8 is a lens originally listed North of 2k€. That is a price range where Nikon throws in all they got: glass, mechanics, quality control. I used this lens a lot as a loaner from a friend. Gosh. A great performer!
The 16-35/4 is ~1k€ listing price and you get a lot of "features", which does not mean all these features feature state of the art incarnation...
-
The 14-24mm AFS 2.8 suffers from unpredictable ghost and or flare especially for instance when the sun is anywhere near the frame - the front elment 'peeps' out and is more or less unprotected by the build in lens hood as it approaches the 14mm mark - Can of course look nice but it can also ruin an images if no such thing is acceptable for the intended image.
Otherwice its a winner on all accounts - more or less ;)
-
I confess. My work was mostly indoors. Tripod. HDR.
-
Simone Frank and Erik - Thanks for your replies. Simone - yes, my picture was with the 17-35 wide open. At this focal length it improved as expected on stopping down, but didn't get sharp into the corners until f/8. I think your test scenes from earlier in this thread show the 16-35 and 18-35 performing better in the corners at f/4. Frank - I would normally remove the CA and distortion in the raw conversion, so not too worried about those aspects. However, for my day-to-day use of a wide zoom sharpness across the frame is important and it sounds as though I shouldn't expect the 17-35 (even at f/4) to match the more recent lenses. Shame that with new optical design comes less robust build ... I'll try renting the 16-35 and 18-35 and see how I like them (I already know I will not like the plastic and the lack of aperture ring). I have rented the 14-24 in the past and really liked it, but inability to protect it with a filter is a major drawback for me. Whichever I end up with will get months of outdoor use at a stretch, in places with plenty of snow, rain or dust in the air.
Cheers - John
-
I don't know whether that 17-35 test shot is good or bad, but it looks like a really challenging scene. It looks like your focus point is in the foreground or mid distance, so I would think some of the far away corner elements are way OOF.
-
I don't know whether that 17-35 test shot is good or bad, but it looks like a really challenging scene. It looks like your focus point is in the foreground or mid distance, so I would think some of the far away corner elements are way OOF.
Does this call for an old school brick wall test??? HAHAHA
Another ides: What about third party glass? I heared the new Tamron line sounds promising and IIRC Tokina had interesting offerings too.
-
I'm still pleased with my one copy of the 17-35, 9.5 years later. Bjorn R observed sample variation issues way back when the lens was introduced in 1999/2000. Mine has proved useful from D200 and D2xs to D3 and surprisingly, D800. I 'm not motivated to get rid of it even though I've got the 14-24 plus a bunch of good primes.
Question: When you folks refer to "the corners", exactly how far away from the actual corner are we talking about?
-
Question: When you folks refer to "the corners", exactly how far away from the actual corner are we talking about?
In my samples, it's the farthest 1/6th or 1024x684 px of the total image (6016x4016 px).
-
Chip, Frank and Keith (pluton) - thanks for the further feedback. This is a difficult scene and definitely the most challenging/worst performance by the lens while I had it to work with. Focus should have been on the edge of the blue building in the background, hopefully this is not a misfire. Frank - yes, good things are being said about the Tamron 15-30 mm 2.8, and Tokina makes a number of potential alternatives. The Tokina 11-16 mm 2.8 DX is a brilliant performer on the D7000, so I should definitely take a look at their offerings. Good thing I have time to do this at a leisurely pace, as buying a lens shortly after the D810 would be excessive. Pluton - thanks also for your strong endorsement of the 17-35. I think it is entirely possible that this particular one, a rental, has been handled unkindly in the past. I will keep an eye out for other copies that show up second-hand locally and see if I can make some comparisons.
Cheers again, John
-
One last thing: I had my 12-24 Tokina (first edition) together with my D70 as kindof 18-36 crop lens (I do not believe in equiva'lens' and will post visual evidence as soon as I find time, possibly in Scotland).
!!!: This lens served as a great 18-24 on my D3 also, because the image circkle was much bigger than necessary. I feel the "PRO" Tokinas are really well made. Mechanically the 12-24 was much more rugged than the 12-24DX Nikkor and optically they played in the same league. Someone even claimed this lens was a co-development by Nikon and Tokina.
-
I used to have the Tokina 11-16. I played around with it when I switched to FX. Of course you could get an image at 16mm but it had very weird distortion and the corners were just abysmal. It was usable for fun but was no comparison to any dedicated FX lens. There is a reason why that part of the image circle is cropped off.
But even on DX, the results I could get were not in the same league as from an FX lens on FX, the jump in format size was very obvious for me in th wide angle territory and less obvious for longer focal lengths, where it can be difficult to tell images from FX and DX apart. That said, the 11-16 is a very good lens on DX and I believe the new one is even better.
-
Hereby a picture and a 100% crop of the extreme left upper corner taken with the Nikkor 16-35mm f/4 at 22mm f/6.3 1/500 ISO 100. The 100% crop is an uncorrected NEF file, contrary to the full frame picture. Personally, I find the "corner" performance very good.
-
That is indeed very good corner performance! Fully acceptable.
-
Thank you Erik. Here another example for the Nikkor 16-35mm f/4, this time at the widest angle (16mm) but at f/11; again full frame and 100% crop of the lower left and right corner; most off the time I'm using this lens at f/8-11 to maximise the depth of field, without entering into the diffraction danger area:
-
Maybe your copy is indeed better than mine, maybe it's the fact that we are using them on different sensors (16mp vs 24mp), but your samples look much cleaner in the corners than e.g. my tree sample where there is excessive smearing and double-images (it is wide open at f/4 though, but the 18-35 is much cleaner at the same aperture). I must say that my 16-35 seemed pretty flawless on the D700, but the D600 revealed its weaknesses. I would expect that my copy would be even weaker on a D800.
Anyway, good to know that there are good copies and satisfied owners out there :)
-
Hi Simone, I just took some existing pictures out of my catalog. If I have some time, I will take some more "on-purpose" pictures at full opening. The D4s has been replaced by the D5; the highest pixel camera I have is the D610; no D8xx on hand .... I know that D810's and the like are sensitive to motion / vibration blur. Would it also be the case for sharpening fall-off ?
-
.... I know that D810's and the like are sensitive to motion / vibration blur.,,,,,,,
The D810 has a very well dampned mirror/shutter action, so only issue would be the high MP and motion blur - not so much the case for a wide angle,,,
Again the image is perfectly sharp and well defined in the corner of the 16-35mm
-
Hi Simone, I just took some existing pictures out of my catalog. If I have some time, I will take some more "on-purpose" pictures at full opening. The D4s has been replaced by the D5; the highest pixel camera I have is the D610; no D8xx on hand .... I know that D810's and the like are sensitive to motion / vibration blur. Would it also be the case for sharpening fall-off ?
I needed to be more precise. Of course any lens will resolve more on the denser sensor, even if a poorly resolving lens gains very little. The biggest boost in resolution is commonly seen in the center, where I believe both the 18-35 and 16-35 are limited by the 24mp sensor. Hence I did not post center crops of my samples, the lenses are virtually indistinguishable if you look at the center. The fall-off of sharpness from center to corner will be more pronounced on the denser sensor. So while the fall-off was barely visible on a 12mp sensor, it is apparent on my 24mp sensor and I expect it to be even more pronounced on the D800 or D810. It does not matter much whether the sharpness fall-off I observe in my 16-35 is due to a defect or is by design (I don't believe it is by design, there are too many people whose findings are different from mine); the 24mp sensor is simply more revealing of the limits of my 16-35 copy.
The vibration is a different issue and not what I meant. I made all my test shots with MUP and IR remote release on a tripod to minimize camera shake.
-
Simone,
Your choice was understandable because you chose between two lens samples.
But for the benefit of the discussion, I stated earlier my 16-35 has excellent corner performance .....just to add I use the lens with my D800's. I would expect similar results to MFloyd's sample images.
Cheers
-
Simone,
Your choice was understandable because you chose between two lens samples.
But for the benefit of the discussion, I stated earlier my 16-35 has excellent corner performance .....just to add I use the lens with my D800's. I would expect similar results to MFloyd's sample images.
Cheers
Good to know!
-
FWIW, I've had two of the 16-35. The first one was quite mushy in the corners but my second one is much better.
-
I'm still pleased with my one copy of the 17-35, 9.5 years later. Bjorn R observed sample variation issues way back when the lens was introduced in 1999/2000. Mine has proved useful from D200 and D2xs to D3 and surprisingly, D800.
Yes, works indeed great on the D800E, but also on the Df and the D600. On the D700 it didn't work so well, somehow. Not sure why.
-
Yes, works indeed great on the D800E, but also on the Df and the D600. On the D700 it didn't work so well, somehow. Not sure why.
I always felt the 17-35 worked fine on my D3 cameras, with supposedly the same imager as the D700. Oh well....another mystery of the universe.
-
(https://c6.staticflickr.com/9/8059/8246399693_3bd6233de9_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/dyGXk4)20100625-Copy of 0610 115-2 - Copy (https://flic.kr/p/dyGXk4) by (https://c6.staticflickr.com/9/8337/8246400733_977062354b_b.jpg) (https://www.flickr.c[url=https://flic.kr/p/dyGXCZ)20100625-Copy of 0610 115-2 (https://flic.kr/p/dyGXCZ) by longzoom (https://www.flickr.com/photos/longzoom/), on Flickrom/photos/longzo(https://c5.staticflickr.com/9/8490/8247469572_801f62404d_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/dyNrnf)20100625-Copy of 0610 115-2-3 (https://flic.kr/p/dyNrnf) by longzoom (https://www.flickr.com/photos/longzoom/), on Flickrom/]longzoom[/url], on Flickr. My copy of 16-35 was very good on D3. So the image and 2 crops. LZ
-
(https://c6.staticflickr.com/8/7435/8861230533_ae990f4675_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/ev387M)20130527-003 (https://flic.kr/p/ev387M) by (https://c1.staticflickr.com/6/5465/8861845616_8a0d3d864c_b.jpg) (https://www.flickr.com/ph[url=https://flic.kr/p/ev6gXE)20130527-003-2 (https://flic.kr/p/ev6gXE) by longzoom (https://www.flickr.com/photos/longzoom/), on Flickrotos/longzoom/]longzoom[/url], on Flickr. But on D800 the lens looks stunning, with its sheer resolving power. Image, crop. LZ