16-35 vs. 18-35

[simsurace]

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.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

I have used various 18-35 models and always struck by their optical quality as being much better than expected.

[chris dees]

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.

[Mike G]

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!

[Frank Fremerey]

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.

[simsurace]

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.

[Akira]

The NG member Dave (Patterson) has an excellent sample of AF-S 18-35 whose images posted here always amaze me.

[richardHaw]

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) 

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.

[simsurace]

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.

[simsurace]

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) 

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!

[richardHaw]

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
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...

[simsurace]

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.

[richardHaw]

a prime lens would be the answer(I have a 20mm voigtlander, it seels like 3 stacks of oreos tall!). 
sorry if it's outside of your choices  maybe i can convince you hahaha

[PedroS]

Another vote for the 18-35.
Very happy with mine 

[simsurace]

a prime lens would be the answer(I have a 20mm voigtlander, it seels like 3 stacks of oreos tall!). 
sorry if it's outside of your choices  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.
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.