Reviews of the new 16-35mm/f4 AF-S VR

[jose_angel]

<p>To those who already have the 16-35VR... does your samples have that focus ring "little play", described in Photozone?<br>

<em>(" ... it takes a few millimeters of movement until the focus unit actually follows the focus ring..." )</em></p>

[acarodp]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm pretty sure all the new cameras will have progressively higher pixel counts as computers get faster and are able to more easily process the data without hiccup. So IMO we are better off choosing lenses based on performance with the D3X.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree with you on the fact that cameras will all go a bit more up in resolution, although I don't know how much more. But if I can get a bit philosophical and a bit off-topic here: camera pixel count is not what I base my choices on. My photos have two uses: web, and print, which never exceeds A3. I actually dislike large prints. I am an amateur of course, so I can do precisely what I like from this point of view. I do mostly street photography, and the limiting factor for me in terms of resolution is not pixel count, but motion blur and focus precision. I will never exploit a level of resolution requiring tripod and mirror-up, or all the other subtleties that landscape photographers need to systematically get the best out of 20+ MP. I have shot with a D3x and I can easily say that that level of resolution for my style is useless, and more, gets in the way.<br>

So for what I'm concerned cameras might well go to 100 MP. At some point, I might well buy one of them but surely not because of the 100 MP, more likely despite them. In the kind of photos I do, the final product will never take advantage of anything much beyond 12 MP. So, to go on with the hyperbole, because I had to buy a 100 MP camera because it was all that was available, should I also sell all my lenses and replace them with stuff that outresolves 100 MP, when I will never be able to keep my subject still enough to use 100 MP, AND my final print will never make any use of 100 MP?</p>

<p>This assessment of course is solely based on my needs, and its conclusions do not pretend to be universal. On the other hand I believe the principle should be universal, that needs are measured on the final result one is after. But I have the impression that a lot of people are more after "what can be done" than after "what thy want to do".</p>

<p>Ciao</p>

<p>L.</p>

[benjaminm]

<p>

 

<p>Jose,<br>

mine has 1-2mm "focusing ring play" and the feeling is a bit smoother (in negative meaning of this expression) than on 24-70/2.8. It doesn't bother me because I use manual focus very seldom on AF-S lenses especially on wide angle lenses.</p>

 

</p>

[anthony_valvo]

<p>I'll be sticking with my 17-35MM. I also have the 14-24MM, but for me the lenses have different uses. <br>

Here is an image take with the 17-35 some years ago and a also a 100% crop of the extreme corner of a 4000dpi scan. Its quite sharp in to the corners. I get similar results on my D3.<br>

There is nothing like real world results to test you lenses.</p>

<p>Best,<br>

Anthony</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[anthony_valvo]

<p>And the crop</p>

<p>Anthony</p><div></div>

[jose_angel]

<p>Benjamin, thanks.</p>