Since upgrading to a D800 I have been looking to replace my older 18-35 with the 16 - 35. The older lens was fine with my F100 and acceptable with my D700 but the lack of sharpness on the older lens is more evident with the D800.
I have been looking at B&H as well as a number of other sites. Nobody has stock. The new 18-35 is reportedly sharper than its predecessor, but I would rather not compromise if it is only a matter of a few months wait. Here in Switzerland they are telling me that is may be 6 months.
I have not read rumours of a replacement (although there is a patent application in the works).
Should I give up and spend the extra on the 14-24 and 24-70 combination without VR?
My other lenses are AFS 50mm f/1.4G, AFS 85mm f/1.8, 70-200 2.8 VR (first generation) 16 mm fisheye and AF 60mm micro.
14-24/2.8 is a very good lens. I use it for landscape and interior/building. If you are looking for wide angle lens for landscape, and use filters most of the time, 16-35/4 is better choice and cheaper than 14-24.
If I were you, I will get 16-35 and skip 24-70 as you are covered from 16mm to 200mm.
Even though the 16-35 f/4 is not labeled as a professional lens, I have read where Nikon manufactures their professional lenses in "batches". Maybe that is the situation with the 16-35 f/4 as well and a new "batch" will ship soon.
Thu 07-Feb-13 07:28 PM | edited Thu 07-Feb-13 07:30 PM by Ray B
My local Nikon Pro dealer in the UK says that they always struggle to get stock of the 16-35 VR, so not just a USA issue, it seems to be ongoing too. It's the only one of the 4.0 trilogy zooms made in Japan. I wonder if that's a factor?
I'm lucky to own a copy and concur it's a fantastic lens. I know the 14-24mm rightly has a fantastic following but for me the 16-35 is ultra sharp and the use of filters plus VR makes it oh so versatile and practical
"Even though the 16-35 f/4 is not labeled as a professional lens"
The 16-35mm is a gold ringed pro lens and NPS recognised
>"Even though the 16-35 f/4 is not labeled as a professional lens"
>>The 16-35mm is a gold ringed pro lens and NPS recognised
I understand what you're saying. However, my 24-120 f/4 has the "gold ring" and it would be very debatable if that ring places it into the "professional" lens category. The build quality is not as good as the vaunted trinity consisting of the 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 f/2.8 professional lenses. Also, as much as I would like it to be, I doubt the 24-120 is as sharp at f/4 as the trinity is at f/2.8.
At one time the "gold ring" was the "professional" label, but recently Nikon has diluted that distinction.
Nikon lists the 24-120mm f/4 on the "lenses you can use for enhanced sharpness" list. It's also on the list of NPS lenses in at least the U.S. and the U.K., so at least in Nikon's eye it's not "very debatable."
"There is no real magic in photography, just the sloppy intersection of physics and art." — Kirk Tuck
- AF-S DX 35mm f1.8G (What!!! - where is the gold ring?) - AF-S 24-120 f/4G ED VR - AF-S 105mm F/2.8 VR
Also, using your other link below I can now increase that count to FIVE "professional" grade lenses I own . Thank you Nikon, I will sleep peacefully tonight knowing I own five of your "professional" grade lenses.
The lens came in on Saturday. A few test shots to verify that it was working properly and then the deal was done.
I took it out to the local carnival, it was a bit wide, shot mostly at 35mm I should have brought my 50mm as well but it was as much a chance to test the lens than it was to capture a Bern's Fasnacht.
I liked the results, the contrast was great at 100% and under the loupe in Aperture I was amazed by the sharpness.
In all I am satisfied with my choice. I had not included the 17-35mm on my list I am not sure why. I had looked at it years ago when I bought the old 18-35mm, but it was not in my budget. No buyer's remorse. I will see after I visit some cathedrals.