Why I’m Saying Goodbye To My Favorite Landscape Photo Lens (and my new fav)?


We’re through! Yup, I’m done with my revered Nikon 14-24mm lens for now. Everyone loves this lens and it definitely has served me well over the years, but I’m moving on. I’ve been thinking about the Nikon 16-35mm lens for a while now so rented one from LensProToGo.com a few times. I took it on some trips with me and here’s what I’ve come up with.

(Photo taken with Nikon 16-35mm lens – click photo for larger view)

First, why was I looking for another lens?
For my photography style at least, I’ve noticed that sometimes my 14-24 didn’t work for me. On the wide end, all I lose from going from the 14-24 to the 16-35 is 2mm – I can deal with that. On the zoomed side, sometimes I simply want to zoom in a little more than 24mm and I can’t with 14-24mm. I’ve also hated the shape of this lens. I lose the lens cap all the time when I take it out of the bag. Usually not a big deal for a lens, but the glass on this lens bulges out so far that I always felt like I was going to scratch the lens. And the biggest problem (for me at least) I’ve had is that I can’t put filters on it. I don’t care much about not being able to use a polarizer on it. When you’re shooting that wide, a polarizer would most likely give you a very weird looking sky with some parts darker than others because of it’s wide area of view. But I’ve gotten into longer exposure stuff, and been using the Lee Big Stopper a lot, and the adapters don’t fit the 14-24 lens. Now, you can buy an adapter for it, but it’s nearly $400. Yes, I know it’s cheaper than a new lens, but when you put all this together with my reasons above, I decided it was time to change.

(Photo taken with Nikon 16-35mm lens – click photo for larger view)

My Experience with the 16-35 Lens
After using the 16-35 for a couple of weeks I’m extremely happy with it. It’s every bit as sharp as the 14-24. I’ve read reviews where they say it’s not as sharp around the edges as the 14-24mm, but I haven’t seen any signs of it. The largest aperture is f/4 (not 2.8 like the 14-24) but that doesn’t bother me. I’m using it to shoot landscapes so I typically never go below f/11 (and usually f/16 or higher). It’s also got vibration reduction. I haven’t used it yet since I’m usually on a tripod, but it may come in handy one day.

In addition to the two photos I posted here, I posted a couple long exposure photos I took with the 16-35 a couple weeks ago. One was from San Francisco (click here to see the post) and the other was from Boston (click here to see the post).

Another added perk (for me at least)
Another benefit of the lens is that it’s great for background photos. I do a lot of Photoshop compositing work (placing a person into a different background) and I like to walk around and take photos of potential backgrounds (here’s a link to my book on the topic). It’s kinda cool actually. While I’m usually a light snob, and only like to shoot during good light, you can find cool backgrounds at nearly any time of the day. My lens for backgrounds (until now), was the Nikon 24-70mm. The problem with it was that sometimes I like to shoot wider than 24mm, and I couldn’t unless I put the 14-24 on. But when I wanted to zoom in further than 24mm, I had to put another lens on. The 16-35mm is the perfect compositor’s background lens.

My Recommendation
If you’re looking for a great landscape and nature photography lens (or just an great overall wide angle lens), that’s fairly lightweight and about half the price as it’s closest Nikon competitor, then I’d definitely recommend it.

What’s Your Thoughts?
Anybody own this lens? Compared it to the 14-24? Any other lenses in it’s range that you feel are a must have?

The lens is actually on backorder these days (here’s the link), but unless some one talks me out of it, as soon as I can I’ll probably grab one (unless anyone has one to sell) :)

  • http://williambeem.com William Beem

    Seems like sound logic to me. I very much love my 14-24, but I’ve loved other lenses and left them behind when a better solution came around. I may have to try renting the 16-35mm to see if it’s right for me.

  • http://dougkaye.com Doug Kaye

    Matt, I own both of these lenses, but like you, I owned the 14-24mm first. For that reason, the 16-35mm mostly just sits on the shelf. But I agree with all your comments. I particularly laughed about the lens cap. I thought it was just me! That thing never stays on. I’ve taken to putting it into the bag with the lens cap up. I also agree about the filters. OTOH, I recently damaged my 14-24mm by flinging my side-opening bag over my shoulder and hearing the lens fly out of the unzipped bag onto the concrete. After about six weeks, I got it back from Nikon for a reasonable repair cost, and now it’s even better than when I got it (used). Still, I may give the 16-35mm more of a chance. I look forward to hearing what you think after a few more shoots with it.

    • http://mattk.com Matt Kloskowski

      Thanks Doug. Let me know how it goes when you pull the 16-35 out again. And nope, you’re not the only one with the lens cap. Everyone I know has the same problem :)

      • http://gravatar.com/markrlawrence markrlawrence

        Hey Matt Great shots! are you using the 16-35 on a D3

        • http://mattk.com Matt Kloskowski

          Sometimes. I’ve been borrowing Scott’s D800 a lot so I’ve been using it on that one lately.

          • http://gravatar.com/markrlawrence markrlawrence

            Just to let you know I did some diging up here in canada and you can find the 16-35 at London Drugs and they do have the lens in stock for $1099.00 Cdn.
            Did you ever consider the 17-35 2.8 without the VR?

  • http://randomphotons.wordpress.com J.I.

    Matt, I have both lenses and I am keeping them both. The 14mm can enhance the foreground better and deliver unique perspectives to architecture and landscape photos. The 16-35mm is more versatile … it is also a very good lens for street photography and environmental portraits. I would agree that it is better to travel with the latter lens 90% of the time. I would only carry the 14-24mm lens if I have something very specific in mind when I go out to shoot.

  • Jonathan Witt

    Thanks Matt –

    I have been trying to decide which lens to go with since I got my D800.

    Everything kept pointing me in the direction of the 16-35 but as I looked around most of the pros seem to use the 14-24. So I was waiting to rent both of the lenses and try time out when I had some vacation time.

    Since then I have come back around to the 16-35 being the right choice for what I want to photograph.

    I just wish I would have ordered the lens last week when Amazon had them in stock.

    This lens seems to be hard to find right now. Almost everyone has the 14-24 but no one has the 16-35 in stock.

  • http://www.mountdrago.zenfolio.com Mylan Dawson

    I’ve struggled with my urge to buy the 14-24. I have the 16-35 and love it. In testing it vs a friend’s 14-24, I find the 2 lenses equal in sharpness at least to my eyes. I would enjoy the speed of 2.8 as I am now dabbling in shooting night shots of stars, etc. but really cannot justify the cost or the hassle of carrying around a heavier (it weighs more than the 16-35) or bulkier (is that a word?) lens. I use filters on 70% or more of my shots and either I cannot use them at all with the 14-24 or I have to buy an expensive extra adapter and sometimes even a larger filter on top of that. Just not worth it for me – for now. Now, if you are selling your 14-24 real cheaply … :)

  • http://www.edwud.com Ed O’Keeffe

    As soon as I read the title of this post on Twitter I guessed you would be talking about the 16-35mm.

    I am currently a DX (D300) shooter and feel no need to upgrade at the moment (upgrading my skills before I upgrade my gear). My current lenes are the Sigma 10-20mm and the Nikon 18-200mm.

    One day in the far off future I plan to upgrade to full frame and would only consider making the jump if my budget allowed for a 16-35 coupled with a 28-300mm – this in my opinion is the perfect solution for my travel / landscape / city scape / night photography style of shooting.

    I can see why some maybe choose the 12-24mm over the 16-35mm (wedding photographers for example who might need f/2.8) but this seems to be a smaller market, particularly when it comes to having a super wide angle that doesn’t take your standard 77mm sized screw in filters!

    Each to there own I guess – keep up the great work Kloskowski! :)

    • http://mattk.com Matt Kloskowski

      Thanks Ed. Not to mention that 14-24 isn’t exactly the best portrait or wedding lens. Not to say you can’t shoot people with it, but it’s one big and heavy lens to keep with you “just in case” :)

  • Laura Fowler
    • http://mattk.com Matt Kloskowski

      Thanks Laura! Just sucks to be a refurb for more than you’d pay for it new :)

  • http://www.facebook.com/LarryChuaPhotography Larry Chua

    I’ve been going back and forth between whether to get the 14-24 or the 16-35. I’m leaning toward the 16-35 even though I’m an occasional wedding shooter and will be loosing the capability to open up to 2.8 with the 14-24. But I like the thought of being able to zoom to 35 and leaving my 24-70 behind if I’m bringing the 50 and 85 prime along.

    • http://mattk.com Matt Kloskowski

      I’m with you Larry. I don’t use my 24-70mm a lot. Usually in the studio but that’s it.

  • Mitch Sacks

    Hi Matt, if you ditch the 14-24mm for the 16-35mm, and don’t use your 24-70mm a lot, what other lenses do you carry with you when you either travel or go out shooting locally?

  • Mitch Sacks

    There’s a nice used one available on eBay. It’s currently at $1025.00 with two days left on the auction. Lots of brand new ones for sale on eBay as well.

    http://goo.gl/KiQvW

  • http://www.mastersimaging.ca Nathan Masters

    What is a good Canon Wide Angle lens? I am wanting to get one for my landscape photography? Do you have any good ideas for Canon?

  • http://mattk.com Matt Kloskowski

    Hey Nathan – here’s the Canon equivalent: http://amzn.to/NfVCGy

  • http://www.wowphotoshdr.com Jim Begley

    Having a GOOD buddy who is a NPS rep… ( Bill Fortney ) I have had the opportunity to shot both a lot. I loved the 14 to 24 and like you had situations where it just didn’t fit. So after 6 months of using both….. I bought the 16 to 35. That extra reach on the long end is great and also like you I can live with the 2mm. I can now use all my 77mm filters. It is lighter, easier to handle, I do shoot handheld a lot and I consider it my walking around lens of choice. Good Call. Here is a shot I did out on our Bodie trip with Bill and RC and this is at F4 at 16mm. http://www.wowphotoshdr.com/Other/FEATURED/14413329_Pm7Fbh#!i=1954802505&k=7tXGR3w

    • http://mattk.com Matt Kloskowski

      Awesome photo Jim. I wish I was there. Sounds like you guys had a great time.

  • http://lussierphoto.com Bob Lussier

    Matt … good write up.
    I bought the 16-35 when I upgraded to the D700 a couple of years ago. Two things about it bother me. One is the distortion at the wide end, which isn’t usually an issue for landscape work and can be corrected pretty easily w/ the lens profile in Lightroom. The other issues is the shape of the “star burst” at narrow aperture. It isn’t terribly distinct – I find the look unappealing. The lens has’t seen much action lately (been using primes, mostely).

    I’ve been considering upgrading (or downgrading?) to the 14-24, but based on your writeup, I’ll probably dust it off and put it through its paces for a while… give it another shot.

  • Mitch Sacks

    Did you consider the Nikon 17 – 35mm f2.8?

    • http://mattk.com Matt Kloskowski

      I haven’t Mitch. Only thing that really turns me off on it is no nano coating. I shoot into the sun all the time for landscapes and lack of nano coating would cause the flare to get pretty out of control. I’ll have to look into it though.

      • http://gravatar.com/photosantafe photosantafe

        Hi Matt. If you or anyone else has experience with the 17-35mm, please post. I have a D800 on (back)order too and am trying to decide which wide angle to go with. Based on this post, I think I may just have eliminated to 14-24mm because of the inability to use a ND filter or any filter directly on the lens. Thanks.

  • Glenn

    After initially thinking I was buying the 14-24mm I bought the 16-35mm a while ago for many of the same reasons you listed. It’s incredibly sharp for my landscape work, I’ve not seen the issues some have listed here working the lens with my D3s. I find I use it more than I do my 24-70mm, the lens I was using before for landscapes. I’m really looking forward to using it with the D800 I’m now waiting for from my friends at B&H (unless someone knows who might have it in stock…).

    • http://mattk.com Matt Kloskowski

      You’re gonna love the D800 Glenn!

  • Mike NY

    I love the 16-35. I was considering the 14-24 to have the “holy trinity”, but the fact I could not use filters, lik you mentioned, was a deal breaker. I use filters all the time, even polarizer- if I am shooting waterfalls to reduce reflections. It would have killed me not to be able to use that on a wide angle.

    • http://mattk.com Matt Kloskowski

      GREAT point Mike. I had never thought about the polarizer for none-sky shots. And I use it all the time on waterfalls and trees and what-not just to make the color pop a little more and reduce glare. But you’re absolutely right, it could come in very handy when shooting that wide.

  • Pingback: How to Choose a Lens and Solve Your Photography Problems

  • http://twitter.com/traversejournal Steven Bath (@traversejournal)

    I own 2 lenses for my D800 and beastly F4; the 16-35 (which I absolutely love) and the 50mm 1.4, I just zoom with my feet and that little beauty slays the 24-70mm… Eventually, when I convince my wife to let me, I’d like to add just 1 more lens to my little arsenal. Perhaps the 70-200mm or the 85mm? Go ahead Matt, spend my money for me and tell my wife I need another lens… She’ll listen to you!

    • http://mattk.com Matt Kloskowski

      Ok Steven… you have my permission :) Spend away!

  • http://www.barrycainphotography.com Barry Cain

    I’ve got both and the 14-24 is so sharp I just can’t let it go. Not having a filter is a real pain. I had the entire front element frost up in Yellowstone a couple years ago. The 16-35 is much more practical and easier to use.

  • http://www.louisdallaraphotography.com/ Louis Dallara

    Hummm… Dam you, I have the 14-24mm and your pics are awesome and almost make me want to switch.
    I’m looking to lighten my load, I’m getting to old to carry all this gear (holy Trinity) around and think the 16-35 might lighten it up a bit ? What do you think?

    I almost want to design a cheap filter adapter for the 14-24 mm out of a beer can and hose clamps… so stay tuned in.

    • Stephen Kapp

      Not sure if Dominic in the post further below is using this Lee “kit,” but recently came across the perfect solution for the 14-24 that you bring up: http://www.leefilters.com/index.php/camera/system#sw-150 (“The SW-150 Filter Holder has been designed specifically to fit the Nikon 14-24mm lens.”). Having said that, I still think my next lens is going to be the 16-35.

  • Sergio Marcheselli

    Hi Matt. Your “troubles” about 14-24 are mine. I’ve just received the D800 and I’m searching another good “wide”. So I’ll follow you… :-) p.s. Sorry for my bad language and greetings from Italy.

  • http://www.pixelstate.com Chris

    Hi Matt,
    I just heard your interview on NIK Radio and you mentioned that you might make the move from the 14-24mm. I am in a similar situation where I really want the 77mm thread so that I can utilise my set of Lee Filters… Excellent timing with this article.

    16-35mm now on order :-)

    Chris

  • http://www.tommybotellophotography.com Tommy B.

    Matt, if you’re still looking for the 16-35mm, give Allen’s Camera in Levittown, PA a call at 215-547-2841. They’ll ship it free.

    • Matt Kloskowski

      Thanks so much! I got a hold of one though :)

  • Pingback: My Favorite Photography Lenses | Matt Kloskowski

  • http://www.joecolsonphotography.com Joe Colson

    Matt, I’ve owned both lenses, and now own neither. preferring the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 ZF.2. But I’m more interested in your saying “I’m using it to shoot landscapes so I typically never go below f/11 (and usually f/16 or higher).” I’m primarily a landscape shooter, and have been reading more about the effect diffraction has on sharpness. What I’ve read so far would suggest that apertures above f/5.6 begin to show the effects of diffraction (assuming a D800/D800E), with the “sweet spot” being about f/8. The two most recent references I’ve read are Lloyd Chambers’ blog (http://diglloyd.com/blog/2012/20120307_1-Diffraction.html) and the Cambridge in Colour tutorial on lens diffraction (http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm/). I know that, in most cases, we constantly trade off depth of field, diffraction and sharpness. I’d be interested in hearing more about your approach to these tradeoffs.

    • http://mattk.com Matt Kloskowski

      Hi Joe. I absolutely disagree. Here’s my thoughts:
      A) If some one is close enough to look at my photo to notice any diffraction, or…
      B) If some one is looking at my photo in a way that they’d look for diffraction…

      … then they’re not some one I care to enjoy my photography. They can happily go along and look at some one else’s photos taken at f/8 all day. If they’re looking that closely then they’re probably a photographer. Photographers will ALWAYS pick apart and scrutinize photos more than the general public will. And if the normal person looking at a photo sees signs of diffraction then I’ve failed as a photographer and my photo must not be compelling enough for them to concentrate on other things.

      In theory, this may be a real issue with lenses. I’ve never seen it enough to ever worry about it though and it’s not something that I think anyone else will notice. A little unsharp mask in Photoshop will take care of any sharpness issues that you’re referring to. :)

    • stockpost

      Bullshit. I’ve been doing this since 1958. These lenses suck/are soft at small apertures. Stay the hell away from f16 -32 unless you are actually losing needed depth of field. Which might be the case! That pic of the bridge, everything is at infinity. F5.6 or f

  • Pingback: Going wider. Sold out. Fed up. The Sky is the limit. | Eyenology

  • http://www.pixelstate.com Chris

    Hi Matt,
    I (finally) received my 16-35 this weekend. I planned to use my Lee filter system but as I like to use 105mm polariser, Big Stopper and graduated ND.. I have vignetting issues wide open… any suggestions for addressing this…
    Chris

  • http://asng99@dsl.pipex.com Dominic Byrne

    Sorry to be the one that is being contrary but the 16-35mm will need to be some lens to out-perform the 14-24mm. I am told it is made by elves using magic dust and I think if you end up comparing the two you may be disappointed. Filters are a problem but you need to consider how important that is to you. I use the Lee kit with mine and the major issue I have is with the reflections from the back of the filter – they provide a flimsy cardboard device to use to prevent this but I find a cloth over the lens usually works. There is a 10 stop option for it (but not from Lee).

  • http://www.swifstudios.com Martin

    I made the switch this week… Still have my 14-24, will probably hang on it to it for another few weeks… The optics on the 16-35 are amazing, crisp, crisp, crisp. I must admit, I never thought I would see the day that I would replace my 14-24. Thanks for the review! Off to Costa Rica with my 16-35mm and compatible 77mm filters!

  • Van

    Matt… Still glad you did the trade and switch to the 16-35? I rarely take out my 14-24 and have thought of trading for another lens. But, in the meantime, I have a 24 f/1.4 on a FX and I like the look it gives. I move in and out a lot to get the shot instead of carrying the 14-24.

  • kieran

    After reading all this, I’m a little worried now! Lol.. I was thinking of getting the 14-24 for night timelapses! So obviously I don’t worry about the filter issue. And I’ve also read many times that the 16-35 is not a good lens for low-light!.. Am I still making the right decision with the 14-24?. Or is there a better lens out there for a NIKON body?.. Advice greatly needed!!.. Many thanks..

    • Chris

      Hi kieran … I think you and I are in the exactly the same boat! I too am ABOUT to buy the 14-24 for night photos. The extra stop will help a lot. There are no other ultra-wide lenses for Nikon (that I’ve found), unless you want fisheye, which I don’t.

      One thing that is helping me make the decision to go with 14-24 is that I’m buying it used from a guy I trust at work … for $1450. I think I might even be able to sell it for that much in a year’s time if I don’t like the weight or want to start using filters on an ultra-wide. What do you think?

  • Ronald

    Poisoned with this article so I bought 16-34mm yesterday.

    • http://mattk.com Matt Kloskowski

      :) good choice!

  • http://www.byronwillphotography.com Byron

    Well, I thought the Nikon 16-35mm was a pretty great lens too, and it is in many ways, until I did high ISO (ISO1600) long exposures (over 25 sec.) of the night sky with my D800e this week on the Olympic Peninsula. Every frame has 2 reddish streaks running at right angles to the frame. The position of the streaks in the frame changes with focal length.

    The scope of this issue is not known, but it’s now fairly well discussed on DP Review in a number of threads (just Google: Nikon 16-35mm long exposure problems), with examples that are very similar to mine. Not many folks do this type of photography. No solutions so far. I’m going to try another copy (or two) tomorrow. It’s a repeatable problem, and shows up by simply changing bodies, which I’ve done in a black room with no light source, so it’s definitely the lens, and not the body or light leaks. Maybe the VR is not shielded properly…Nikon, so far, is mute. The pattern changes when VR is on and the camera is moved during exposure.

    Sad. I do this type of photography often, and really love this lens otherwise, so I thought folks should know. You can check right at home or in the store. Just need the lens cap on, set the aperture at f/22 (just to minimize light coming in) high ISO (1600 and over) and and long shutter speed (30 sec.). It’s at it’s worse on my lens at 16mm, so start there.

    For me, it’s a big problem, and makes the lens useless for this type of work. If you don’t do this kind of photography (very long exposures), it’s not a problem, as it performs admirably otherwise.

    • Steven H

      I was just talking with a gentlemen in a local camera shop about this issue the other day. It’s seems, at least according to him, that it interference caused by VR, and VR does not completely bypass, even when disabled. He mentioned using tape to cover the VR contacts on the lens to remedy the issue while doing this kind of work. Additionally, it seems that it doesn’t affect all copies of the lens.

      • Dennis Smith

        I just did this test, and it didn’t have any reddish streaks. I used my D4, F22, lens cap on 30 seconds. I tried ISO 1600 and 3200. Maybe it is a bad copy of the lens? I even pixel peaked, nothing.

  • http://www.jcruzfoto.com jcruzfoto

    Good post. When I switched to full frame I had to retire my Sigma 10-20mm which was a fantastic landscape lens for DX. I actually lost sleep over which one to get, the 14-24 or the 16-35. Price, size, weight, filter size, VR and focal range is what sold me on the 16-35mm. I rented both one weekend and just shot with both. I ended up shooting more with the 16-35mm especially during dusk. I was able to shoot handheld at 1/15. The only drawback was that I noticed more distortion on the edges compared to the 14-24… but that was the only drawback. It was a clear choice.

    Thanks for sharing YOUR experiences with the 16-35mm

  • Anders

    Really helpfull for m but i still cant deside wether to get 16-35 or a 24-70. Unlike you my wish of zoom range would be to zoom in further then 35 but i feel i might miss the width of 16mm. I dont know if 24 really would be wide enough for alot of the landscapes pictures i wanna take. I havn’t done much before but it seems like i will miss it once i finaly start my landscape photography. My wish is that it works as a take picture’s in town aswell as landscapes. Hard to know sence ive not tried a 24-70 or a wide angle for both and i cant rent one here. So for me this articles was kinda a big push into a comprising that the 16-35 might be my pick.

    • http://www.jcruzfoto.com Jeff Cruz

      Hi Anders, if you have a full frame FX camera then get the 24-70mm. I use the 24-70mm 90% of the time and the 16-35mm 10% of the time. If you want an all-purpose lens 24-70mm is the way to go. Also, it’s faster at 2.8.

      When I do landscapes I still use the 24-70mm the majority of time as I’m shooting landscapes at around 24-30 range most often.

    • http://mattk.com Matt Kloskowski

      For me, the 24-70 is too tight for landscapes. When I want wide, I want really wide and the 16mm portion of the lens is perfect for that. Honestly, for me, the 24-70 focal length is as “blah” of a focal length as possible. Good for environmental portraits, but thats about it for me.

  • Anders

    Hello, thx for the reply ! I do shoot FX and its my first. I dont have to have an all purpose lense but i thought as i dont do landscapes as my main i would look into combining it with other things i do occasionally. By the way your photoing it seems as thou a 24-70 would be all fine. And i guess if i still need a wider range one can combining pictures in PS afterwards or just simply get the other afterwards if the need is there.

  • Reggie Broom

    I just bought the Nikon 16-35 F/4 lens and can’t wait to use it. I also have the Nikon 70-200 F/2.8 and have been completely satisfied with it over the five years I’ve used it. Since the Nikon 24-70 F/2.8 has come up a few times in this thread I’d like to get your input on a Nikon midrange zoom. I don’t have coverage in this area just yet. I just purchased the D600 and the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G AF-S VR lens that comes with it but haven’t received it yet. I’ve heard that lens is somewhat lacking in regards to sharpness and distortion. What do you think about the 24-70 F/2.8 versus the 24-120 F/4? Thanks Matt for all you’ve taught me about Lightroom through Kelby Training and getting me shooting RAW.

  • http://www.krisknutson.com Kris

    Matt,
    Thanks for the input I too have been seriously thinking about wide angles. Your 2
    Photos have awesome light especially the winter mountain photo. The color is also
    Handled very well. (I think it’s good to remember these lenses are just tools) which
    You’ve used quite beautifully. What i like most is the lack of distortion you’ve used.

    Often times I see wide angle lenses pulling at the corners of the frame, sort of saying “see me see me” I have a wide angle lens. For myself that’s very distracting often taking away from the content of the photo.

    Kris

  • Pingback: Nikon 24mm f/1.4 Review | Matt Kloskowski

  • Pingback: Nikon 16-35mm F4 VR

  • Jim Fair

    Hello Matt and all your followers, I just purchased the
    Nikon 16-35mm f/4 on your recommendation and I love it!!! Well built, sharp and
    great focusing, I paired this up with my D600 with battery grip and found it
    well bounced as I ran around the beaches, canals and parks here in the Fort
    Lauderdale area. Big question for you
    and your followers, can I use a circular polarizing filter at 16-18mm and get
    even results and no vignette? Is there a
    filter that you recommend, I have been using round, but I also have a Lee 4X4 holder?

    Also will you be bringing your Lightroom Tour to South
    Florida, I went to Joe’s One Light, Two Light in Miami and it was packed. It would be great if you put us on the schedule,
    my finishing could use your assistance.
    Thanks- Jim Fair

  • Jim Fair

    Hello Matt and all your followers, I just purchased the
    Nikon 16-35mm f/4 on your recommendation and I love it!!! Well built, sharp and
    great focusing, I paired this up with my D600 with battery grip and found it
    well bounced as I ran around the beaches, canals and parks here in the Fort
    Lauderdale area. Big question for you
    and your followers, can I use a circular polarizing filter at 16-18mm and get
    even results and no vignette? Is there a
    filter that you recommend, I have been using round, but I also have a Lee 4X4 holder?

    Also will you be bringing your Lightroom Tour to South
    Florida, I went to Joe’s One Light, Two Light in Miami and it was packed. It would be great if you put us on the schedule,
    my finishing could use your assistance.
    Thanks!

  • Clint Baker

    Hey Matt are you still happy with the 16-35??…. im in limbo with either the 14-24 or 16-35….. HELP!!

  • Pingback: Nikon 18-35mm Lens – A New Landscape Photography Lens | Matt Kloskowski

  • orion9000

    Wow, finally. After scouring the interwebs, not getting any closer to a decision concerning a wide angle for my new full frame camera, this review spoke to all the right points. I feel good about my decision to get the 16-35 through and through with no regrets.

  • Pingback: Nikon Lens question

  • Dennis Smith

    Yes, I have this lens. In addition to all you wrote, you can get really close, closer than the spec’s day you can. 16mm close up lens,via have taken images that where about 3 inches away, think car hood ornaments, pine cones on tree branches and the like.