Nikon 16-35/f4 G VR VS 17-35mm f/2.8

[benjaminm]

<p>I don't like tripods. For me VR is a nice feature. <br>

I can use 1sec. shutter speed with that lens.</p><div></div>

[jose_angel]

<p><strong>Exactly</strong>. Thanks. That`s what I`m looking for. If results are consistent at such speeds, I`d say this lens is a wonder. A real Noct-Nikkor.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p><small>

<p>(The Noct-Nikkor is actually an ultra fast lens... What about "<em>Night-Nikkor</em>"?)</p>

</small></p>

[benjaminm]

<p>I have to apologize. I can remember now, I used my tripod shooting that photo. It was some months ago and I forgot it.</p>

 

[jose_angel]

<p>...... Aaaaaaaaaaaaargh!!!! Too much nice to be true!<br /> Could anybody tell me if that`s possible... ? (e.g. consistent results @ 1sec. handheld with the 16-35VR, -even at 16mm-?)</p>

[walterh]

<p>Jose you may gain two stops with VR. Now for a gain of three I would like to see the statistics ^^.<br>

You know how steady your hand is :-P</p>

<p>I used to be able to shoot 1/8 with my 28mm on the F2 in a dark church (one out of say 5). Today my heartbeat is faster - blood pressure higher but then my total mass is less affected by outside factors ^^.</p>

<p>But this was on film - pixel peeping at 100% with a simple mouse click changed a lot of our views.<br>

Guess what: I recently bought a carbon fiber Gitzo series 5 :-) That lets me shoot at 1s ^^.</p>

<p> </p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Thanks Walter. My consistent limit with a wide angle is also 1/8 sec...</p>

[bob_bill]

<p>I agree with Ilkka. I have the 16-35 and rarely use it for shallow dof so I too usually shoot it at 5.6 or 8. I purchased it for travel in particular for areas that prohibit tripods and weight and a $500 savings was nice, weight difference being a more minor consideration when compared with my overall load. I rarely shoot movement with it. I am usually no lower than 18 or 20 mm and can hand hold it braced 2-3 stops lower. If necessary, I shoot in 3 shot bursts with the middle shot the most likely steady since no finger movement there. If necessary, will bump iso to 400 or 800 for totally acceptable results with a d700. As for distortion, have been shooting with an 8mm full frame fisheye almost exclusively for a month, so 16-35 distortion certainly doesnt bother me. With iso capability and vr, I havent missed the one stop difference. Would I miss stops on my 70-200 or 50 1.4, you bet. Those are regularly used with shallow dof in mind. </p>

[benjaminm]

<p>The same shot at 1/2 sec, this time without tripod.</p><div></div>

[benjaminm]

<p>A 100% crop.</p><div></div>

[shineofleo]

I am glad there are so many 16-35 users! Anyway it is new and I hope it is good!

[ShunCheung]

<p>To Benjamin Majcen: a more interesting test is to hand hold the D700 with the 16-35mm/f4 at 1/2 sec for 10 consecutive images, with no image selection allowed. Post 100% crops for all 10 images and check the results.<br>

<br>

Otherwise, as far as I am concerned, those samples are fairly meaningless if one gets to pick the best image with the least amount of vibration among many many samples. For example, if you can only get such resutls in 1 out of 10 times on the average, the implications are going to be very different.<br>

<br>

Another issues is that if you have people in those images, subject movement becomes a major issue at 1/15 sec or perhaps even 1/30 sec. Regardless of how good VR or even your tripod may be, the limiting factor lies elsewhere.</p>

[benjaminm]

<p>To Shun Cheung: I made many shots and most of them are quite acceptable. I'm not a pixel peeper, I shoot photos for fun. IQ is important for me, but it isn't my obsession.<br>

Based on my tests and my experience (I'm using this lens since february) and experience of some photo.net members with their 17-35/2.8 Nikkors (they can shoot at 1/8 sec.), I can say that the new 16-35/4VR Nikkor rivals the nonexisting 16-35/1.4 non VR Nikkor. I think it is amazing. We are talking about shooting static objects.<br>

I hate tripods (including Gitzo) and I love my 16-35/4VR because it sets new limits in my photography for 60% price of 17-35/2.8 Nikkor.</p>

[shineofleo]

<p>Finally I am back to home and continued with the pictures..<br>

<a title="Linkification: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4050/4650039136_bcc477ea50_b.jpg" href="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4050/4650039136_bcc477ea50_b.jpg"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4050/4650039136_bcc477ea50_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="682" /><br /></a><br>

This is an indoor picture and it seems fine, the VR + D3 can handle it quite well.<br>

However the distortion may be need more work, which is typical for wide angle lens:<br>

<a title="Linkification: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4033/4649459537_52fb2a7821_b.jpg" href="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4033/4649459537_52fb2a7821_b.jpg"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4033/4649459537_52fb2a7821_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="682" /><br /></a></p>

<p>By the way, this is the UK pavilion, inside and outside. Quite interesting stuff! Each spike contains a seed at the end:<br>

<img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4006/4650155526_fcae9e13d2_b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="682" /></p>

<p>so the spiky house is named as 'Seed Cathedral' lol. Above picture was taken by this lens at a close distance.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>To Shun Cheung: I made many shots and most of them are quite acceptable. I'm not a pixel peeper, I shoot photos for fun. IQ is important for me, but it isn't my obsession.<br /><br />I hate tripods (including Gitzo) and I love my 16-35/4VR because it sets new limits in my photography for 60% price of 17-35/2.8 Nikkor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Acceptable to one is not necessarily acceptable to someone else. If you hate tripods, I am glad that you are not that demanding on image quality and hopefully you can mostly shoot stuffs with high shutter speeds.</p>

[benjaminm]

<p>Dear Shun, that was a bit insulting. <br>

If someone gets acceptable (for him) results with an f/4VR lens at 1/2 sec. and you can't do it with your f/2.8 non VR lens, it doesn't mean that this person has lower demanding on IQ than you.</p>

<p> </p>