Nikon 16-35mm: Advice Please!

SummerSound

SummerSound

Suspended / Banned
Messages
443
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,

I received the Nikon 16-35mm f4 VR for Christmas but I'm wondering if I've received a poor quality copy.

Can you please take a look at the images below and let me know what you think? (They're just some test shots I grabbed to try out the lens.)

They're all shot with my Nikon D700. VR on. RAW. Imported into Lightroom. No sharpening. Exported 100% crops at 800x600 resolution (JPEG compression at quality 10).

I'm really disappointed with the results but I'm wondering if I'm expecting too much? (I don't think it's even close to the 24-70mm f2.8 I own.)

What do you think?
Thanks very much for your time.

Sample 1
16mm
F11
1/50
ISO 320

Full Image:
8t9mo64gs40idv5chp4o.jpg


100% at Focus Point:
j6xnxdu7iqa33f69lrn5.jpg


100% Bottom Left:
6ridveat9fo6bh9flh91.jpg


100% Bottom Right:
zgge1zfhtmuler660a8h.jpg


100% Other:
jjbui7bjae41od7rijoz.jpg
 
Last edited:
I have taken two of these lenses back this past week, I was not at all happy with the image quality and found myself wondering who did the reviews that I looked at!
I eventually picked up the 14-24 which does give the quality of the 24-70 and 70-200.
 
Thanks for the comment Gramps. I also think the sample images in the reviews look better than mine!

(Not sure if I can stretch to 14-24mm... I would also like to be able to use filters too.)

Anyone else have any thoughts on the images?
 
I would love to. But I have lost about 2000 images that were hosted on Village photos when they closed down.
Looking to find a new host as we speak. It will take me forever to find the images once I do find a decent reliable site.
I did have the 14-24mm before the 16-35mm. I changed for the filters also. It's certainly not my most used lens, but I find it more than good enough for my needs.
I'll see what I can do.
Kev.
 
Right, I loaded 2 that I have found onto Flickr. These are only resized for the web, No sharpening or anything else. No contrast etc..

6661182905_a70370aeb4_o.jpg
[/url][/IMG]

Cropped and resized. No PP

6661281757_296c4da66f_o.jpg
[/url][/IMG]


6661183559_c4818fdef6_o.jpg
[/url][/IMG]


Cropped and resized. No PP
6661283373_5aaf3cc98c_o.jpg
[/url][/IMG]


These were shot at f4.
 
Last edited:
This sort of thing worries me when I buy lenses.I had to return a brand new Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VRII it was assembled wrong!.The OP does seem to have some sort of problem with that lens. I have seen good reviews on that lens, and it is expensive.I would apply sharpening and see if it improves.
 
I have just noticed that his shots were taken at 1/50sec. Mine are a lot faster. maybe there is some camera shake in the OP's shots?
Just a thought.

Kev.
 
I notice that the op says there has been no sharpening applied in LR, do you mean none at all, or was the default setting applied?
 
Were these shot using a tripod?

Bit worrying as this is a lens very much on my radar.
 
I seriously wouldn't worry. It's like anything, you get good or bad. It's under warranty anyway.


Kev.
 
kevshore said:
I have just noticed that his shots were taken at 1/50sec. Mine are a lot faster. maybe there is some camera shake in the OP's shots?
Just a thought.

Kev.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt there's any problem with camera shake. I was using the VR and I have pretty good technique with my stance and shutter pressing. Thanks for the thought though.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
I notice that the op says there has been no sharpening applied in LR, do you mean none at all, or was the default setting applied?
Click to expand...

No sharpening whatsoever. Not even the default 25.

The images do sharpen up a little better but as Gramps said, I would expect stronger results straight from the camera from this class of gear.

Maybe my expectations are wrong though? that's why I'm asking for all your advice. (Which I greatly appreciate.)
 
i was thinking about this class, i guess i need to try it in shop myself to pickup the good copy.
 
I had one of these for a short time, it was far better than these images show - I suspect it to be a dodgy copy. Is it any better at different focal lengths other than 16mm? The one I had was exceptionally good between 20-24mm, less so at the extremeties but still very good.
 
Have a look at the 16-35 topic on Nikon Cafe and see what the lens does in many hands. It is a stunning piece of glass - those images are not typical of the lens.

It looks to me to be a VR problem. I had the same kind of thing on my 70-200 mk 1. It turned out that the VR was not synchig properly. VR off the pictures were pin sharp wide open throughout, VR on turned sharp pics into fuzzy ones.

I would take it back and simply try again. Have you tried it without the VR - at 16mm and 1/50th I wouldn't bother with VR. If you were on 16mm and down to 15th then you might benefit. Give it a go without VR and see if the image quality is the same.
 
jpw said:
I had one of these for a short time, it was far better than these images show - I suspect it to be a dodgy copy. Is it any better at different focal lengths other than 16mm? The one I had was exceptionally good between 20-24mm, less so at the extremeties but still very good.
Click to expand...

Lensflare said:
Have a look at the 16-35 topic on Nikon Cafe and see what the lens does in many hands. It is a stunning piece of glass - those images are not typical of the lens.

It looks to me to be a VR problem. I had the same kind of thing on my 70-200 mk 1. It turned out that the VR was not synchig properly. VR off the pictures were pin sharp wide open throughout, VR on turned sharp pics into fuzzy ones.

I would take it back and simply try again. Have you tried it without the VR - at 16mm and 1/50th I wouldn't bother with VR. If you were on 16mm and down to 15th then you might benefit. Give it a go without VR and see if the image quality is the same.
Click to expand...

Thanks very much for these replies guys. They are very helpful. I'll definitely investigate the potential VR issue tomorrow. I haven't noticed any marked improvement at different focal lengths.

I think I'm coming to the conclusion that it's not a good copy. Sounds like there's a good few of them out there as well!

Any other experiences and/or sample images are very welcome.
 
Considering they had no sharpening at all, this may well be 'acceptable'. Kevshore images are properly soft though - f4 in the centre should look way better.

I would still suggest you try it with VR off on tripod and mirror lock up. VR sometimes makes the image look 'just acceptable' (but much better than blurry).

If you are still not happy, get it back now. It is unlikely it will get perfect with the help of any warranty as it will certainly come back as 'within spec'.
 
Tom, post them with default shaperning.
 
Why would you want to keep a lens where you had to switch VR off on a VR assisted lens because VR softens the image?
Why would you want to use mirror lock up to take a pic with a lens that is supposed to be pin sharp and able to provide quality images in lower light because of the VR?
Surely when you are spending £800-900 on a lens you are entitled to expect it to be sharp and all features properly useable.
Ken Rockwell (I know!) says it's the, "World's Sharpest Ultrawide Zoom".
Mansurovs says, "the Nikon 16-35mm f/4.0 VR beats both the legendary Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8D and my favorite Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G, especially in the corners".

However, Photozone says, "Even if it's still a good lens, this is probably not the level of performance many had expected from it" and in conclusion gives it just 2.5 out of 6 for optical quality - so it would appear that this is a very variable lens.

When I put the 1st sample on my D3 I asked myself if it was any better than the Sigma 15-30 that I had just sold and it wasn't even as good, the 2nd sample the same. They appeared 'ok' at close shots but anything just a bit further away and they just didn't perform - landscape was pathetic.
Both of the lenses had what I would describe as noisey VR and maybe it's the VR that is at the root of the problem, I don't know; what I do know is that when I tried them I felt exactly the same sense of disappointment as the o/p.
 
gramps said:
Why would you want to keep a lens where you had to switch VR off on a VR assisted lens because VR softens the image?
Why would you want to use mirror lock up to take a pic with a lens that is supposed to be pin sharp and able to provide quality images in lower light because of the VR?
Surely when you are spending £800-900 on a lens you are entitled to expect it to be sharp and all features properly useable.
Ken Rockwell (I know!) says it's the, "World's Sharpest Ultrawide Zoom".
Mansurovs says, "the Nikon 16-35mm f/4.0 VR beats both the legendary Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8D and my favorite Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G, especially in the corners".
Click to expand...

I think that daugirdas suggested this to test it rather than to suggest that is should be used like this. It would at least confirm that it is a VR problem.

Did you get a good copy in the end Gramps?
 
gad-westy said:
I think that daugirdas suggested this to test it rather than to suggest that is should be used like this. It would at least confirm that it is a VR problem.

Did you get a good copy in the end Gramps?
Click to expand...

I guess it would prove it or not but for me it wouldn't matter what the problem was, either it worked or it didn't - if I hadn't taken them back I would have always regretted it.
I didn't get a good copy, my dealer only had the two in stock and local Jessops, LCE and Jacobs didn't have any on the shelves so that added to my concerns.
In the end I got a 14-24 which is a mile out front of the two 16-35's I tried but alas more expensive and at over £300 for a filter kit so that'll have to wait for a bit!
 
gramps said:
I guess it would prove it or not but for me it wouldn't matter what the problem was, either it worked or it didn't - if I hadn't taken them back I would have always regretted it.
I didn't get a good copy, my dealer only had the two in stock and local Jessops, LCE and Jacobs didn't have any on the shelves so that added to my concerns.
In the end I got a 14-24 which is a mile out front of the two 16-35's I tried but alas more expensive and at over £300 for a filter kit so that'll have to wait for a bit!
Click to expand...

The filter thing is what puts me off and the concern that it's very, very wide throughout the range where as maybe the 16-35 has a more practical range. Hadn't realised that there were soft copies floating around though. Slightly concerning.
 
The23rdman said:
Tom, post them with default shaperning.
Click to expand...

I'm more than happy to do this but I don't think there will be any surprises! They look moderately sharper (obviously!) but the fine detail is not recovered.
 
kevshore said:
Really?? An unedited RAW file? :thinking: I'm moving over to Canon! :lol:


Kev.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but YES these 2 seem very out of focus at anything but web size. A move to Canon is always a wise move :thumbs:

gad-westy said:
I think that daugirdas suggested this to test it rather than to suggest that is should be used like this. It would at least confirm that it is a VR problem.

Did you get a good copy in the end Gramps?
Click to expand...

Exactly. Your concern is to work out ASAP if the lens is a lemon, and you do want to eliminate any additional variables for that. You need to play with different apertures, and make sure the focus is correct - wide lenses are arguably more accurate with MF.
I doubt the VR is very effective at 16mm anyway; at 35mm maybe.

SummerSound said:
I wasn't going to say anything but yeah, I think they look really bad. I wouldn't be happy with them either.
Click to expand...

neither would I, more like an instant delete and reshoot.
 
Right, here's an update.

VR makes no discernible difference to the sharpness of the lens.
Thanks very much for the information daugirdas but the VR does not seem to be an issue with this particular lens.

I have taken another sample image with a faster shutter speed and at F8 (which should show the lens at its sharpest, according to DP Review). I have created 100% crops with no sharpening and with Lightroom default sharpening.

Sample 3
16mm
F8
1/100
ISO 200

100% crop at Focus Point - No sharpening:
u6b6j06x6x0tpy34uyyo.jpg


100% crop at Focus Point - Default (25) sharpening:
g67q6e88hqd84p3zs0oy.jpg


Still pretty ropey, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top