Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 212

Thread: Anyone got their hands on the 16-35 f4 yet? (nt)

  1. #101

    Default Re: Anyone got their hands on the 16-35 f4 yet? (nt)

    Quote Originally Posted by Numnumball View Post
    I do. Results same as you do.
    It somehow perform much better in terms of corner sharpness at wide open (17 @ f2.8 and 16 at f4) and very good to excellent in terms of center sharpness when stop down 1 to f5.6 and 2 more to f8. Colors are slightly contrast and vivid when compared to 17-35f2.8
    yeah quite surprised too, didn't expect the difference to be so big considering the 17-35 was the nikon's gold standard for WA zoom for the last decade.
    I was considering 17-35 too (cos of the 2.8). But after comparing with the 16-35 there is no contest on optical quality.

  2. #102

    Default Re: Anyone got their hands on the 16-35 f4 yet? (nt)

    btw bro nnumball, your shop still has stock for 16-35?
    pls pm if you don't mind revealing the shop and roughly how much u paid for it.
    thx alot

  3. #103
    Senior Member Numnumball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Central
    Posts
    13,914

    Default Re: Anyone got their hands on the 16-35 f4 yet? (nt)

    Quote Originally Posted by ZeroDivine View Post
    yeah quite surprised too, didn't expect the difference to be so big considering the 17-35 was the nikon's gold standard for WA zoom for the last decade.
    I was considering 17-35 too (cos of the 2.8). But after comparing with the 16-35 there is no contest on optical quality.
    I am taken aback as well.. To frank, Before FF (nt 35mm firm) was introduced way few years bk with D3, 17-35 f2.8 excel really in Digital bodies like D2H, D2XS ETC.. But on FF it's good but nth more (14-24 spoil market u see ) It amaze me first when i used it on my D700 but not the way its does when i mount the 16-35 on the same cam. Now i really believe its time for it to move aside(retire) and make way for this new sensation in UWA standards in nikon class (that take filters)

    But thats the thing abt digital stuff isn't it~!? New is always better and cheaper
    I turned PRO in diaper chg!
    My Flickr|My Son

  4. #104

    Default Re: Anyone got their hands on the 16-35 f4 yet? (nt)

    Quote Originally Posted by lohkam View Post
    How ridiculous?I'm curious on the market offers.Hehe.
    Is it true this 16-35 is below SGD 2k?Anyone who owns one,do let me know.Thanks
    Cathay 1 pc left as yet 1pm today: $2100

    Alan Photo last pc taken by me at 6pm today $1860.

    I am amazed at the sharpness n the VR really helps!

    No funny distortion as compared with the 14-24mm which I have long sold.
    Sony RX100M3 + Canon GX 7....I have gone to the Small Side

  5. #105
    Senior Member Numnumball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Central
    Posts
    13,914

    Default Re: Anyone got their hands on the 16-35 f4 yet? (nt)

    Quote Originally Posted by achtungbaby View Post
    Cathay 1 pc left as yet 1pm today: $2100

    Alan Photo last pc taken by me at 6pm today $1860.

    I am amazed at the sharpness n the VR really helps!

    No funny distortion as compared with the 14-24mm which I have long sold.
    Wow, Quite ridiculous at how much CP charges..

    Suggest to those who want to get, just wait there should be more stock coming in soon
    I turned PRO in diaper chg!
    My Flickr|My Son

  6. #106
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    West
    Posts
    3,136

    Default Re: Anyone got their hands on the 16-35 f4 yet? (nt)

    This sucks man, called AP around 4:30pm they say no stock of the lens... And somehow someone manages to get it from AP... Sigh.

  7. #107
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Marina Bay
    Posts
    383

    Default Re: Anyone got their hands on the 16-35 f4 yet? (nt)

    Quote Originally Posted by anzebug View Post
    whoa... usually the variance isnt so significant across the major shops. seems like novelty has a premium nowaday. it wasnt like this when the 70-200VR II was released a few months back.

    Back to the issue of 16-35 vs the 14-24, my opinion is that the longer working range in the 16-35 is more useful than the 14-24 despite the F4.0 factor. In the current nikon FF cameras line-up whereby high ISO prevails, this would not be concern at all. the VR will also assist in low light condition and at low shutter speed.

    Im thinking of getting one myself. any recommendation as to which store has the stock and the best pricing currently?

    Rgds.
    But what if you're shooting close up wide open and need that blurring effect? The 2.8 will make quite abit of difference wouldn't it? I feel like just buying both.....

  8. #108
    Senior Member Numnumball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Central
    Posts
    13,914

    Default Re: Anyone got their hands on the 16-35 f4 yet? (nt)

    Quote Originally Posted by fevernova View Post
    But what if you're shooting close up wide open and need that blurring effect? The 2.8 will make quite abit of difference wouldn't it? I feel like just buying both.....
    Bro, a prime lke 50 f1.8 will better tat in terms of achieving oof areas if tats what u r referring.. UWA is never good at doing that becos of its relatively shorter focal length..

    Digging deep into ur pockets to fund both lens is truly not recommendable, reason being overlapping focal range though each has its own use (14-24 is a special purpose lens) unless u really have the dough~ then i not in the position to stop u.. just dun wan u to act in impulse..

    trust me, you won't have the time to optimize their usage..Just one will suffice lar *i'm helping u save money leh *
    Last edited by Numnumball; 25th February 2010 at 09:22 AM.
    I turned PRO in diaper chg!
    My Flickr|My Son

  9. #109
    Member luntut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Punggol
    Posts
    1,883

    Default Re: Anyone got their hands on the 16-35 f4 yet? (nt)

    Quote Originally Posted by fevernova View Post
    But what if you're shooting close up wide open and need that blurring effect? The 2.8 will make quite abit of difference wouldn't it? I feel like just buying both.....
    f/4, and f/2.8.

    do not expect a whole world of difference in terms of bokeh (or blurring effect as you call it).

    you will be sorely disappointed that, at that amount of money you pay, everything else remaining the same except for the lens, the bokeh is not worth it.

    that f/2.8 is used for something else. not to increase blurring that much, or as much as you hoped for.

    you might want to consider 24 f/1.4 if you wan blur stuff.

    dont spend 3k just to find out that the bluring is not what you want. that was what happened to me when i bought my first f/2.8 constant lens.
    Fast Camera. Fast Lens. Slow Me. Sigh.
    My Flickr

  10. #110
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    370

    Default Re: Anyone got their hands on the 16-35 f4 yet? (nt)

    Quote Originally Posted by Numnumball View Post
    I am taken aback as well.. To frank, Before FF (nt 35mm firm) was introduced way few years bk with D3, 17-35 f2.8 excel really in Digital bodies like D2H, D2XS ETC.. But on FF it's good but nth more (14-24 spoil market u see ) It amaze me first when i used it on my D700 but not the way its does when i mount the 16-35 on the same cam. Now i really believe its time for it to move aside(retire) and make way for this new sensation in UWA standards in nikon class (that take filters)

    But thats the thing abt digital stuff isn't it~!? New is always better and cheaper
    This is interesting. The 17-35 is marketed as a pro lens by Nikon alongside the 16-35 and yet the optical quality suggests otherwise. Is the only advantage of the 17-35 its speed then? Hv seen on dpreview forum that some fellow had tested them both side by side and said the 17-35 was quite abit sharper across the board compared to the 16-35 (no picture comparisons tho).

    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...hread=34633368

  11. #111
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    North..
    Posts
    216

    Default Re: Anyone got their hands on the 16-35 f4 yet? (nt)

    Can anyone with the lens do a review on a film SLR? wonder how it performs on film. The 17-35 is very very good with F5.

    I still have my F5 with me, who knows when will i use it again... Anyway, the Sigma 12-24 sucks when on film.

  12. #112
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    West
    Posts
    3,136

    Default Re: Anyone got their hands on the 16-35 f4 yet? (nt)

    Anyone saw stock anywhere else other than Cathay?

  13. #113
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Marina Bay
    Posts
    383

    Default Re: Anyone got their hands on the 16-35 f4 yet? (nt)

    Quote Originally Posted by Numnumball View Post
    Bro, a prime lke 50 f1.8 will better tat in terms of achieving oof areas if tats what u r referring.. UWA is never good at doing that becos of its relatively shorter focal length..

    Digging deep into ur pockets to fund both lens is truly not recommendable, reason being overlapping focal range though each has its own use (14-24 is a special purpose lens) unless u really have the dough~ then i not in the position to stop u.. just dun wan u to act in impulse..

    trust me, you won't have the time to optimize their usage..Just one will suffice lar *i'm helping u save money leh *

    Thanks bro for your input! I think I'll probably stick with the 16-35....

  14. #114
    Senior Member Numnumball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Central
    Posts
    13,914

    Default Re: Anyone got their hands on the 16-35 f4 yet? (nt)

    Quote Originally Posted by kylelam77 View Post
    This is interesting. The 17-35 is marketed as a pro lens by Nikon alongside the 16-35 and yet the optical quality suggests otherwise. Is the only advantage of the 17-35 its speed then? Hv seen on dpreview forum that some fellow had tested them both side by side and said the 17-35 was quite abit sharper across the board compared to the 16-35 (no picture comparisons tho).

    http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...hread=34633368
    Oh i m surprised views differ..

    Actually in terms of AF speed 16-35 is only abit slower (but fast enuff for a UWA).
    I turned PRO in diaper chg!
    My Flickr|My Son

  15. #115
    Senior Member icarus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    East
    Posts
    3,874

    Default Re: Anyone got their hands on the 16-35 f4 yet? (nt)

    Can those lucky owners with this 16-35 VR please post some photos? I really need to get poisoned
    Yngwie J. Malmsteen - "...I've never considered myself a fast guitar player..."

  16. #116

    Default Re: Anyone got their hands on the 16-35 f4 yet? (nt)

    Quote Originally Posted by icarus View Post
    Can those lucky owners with this 16-35 VR please post some photos? I really need to get poisoned
    me too.... read until very very poisoned in the mind already
    one photo might just push me over, but !!! no stock!

  17. #117

    Default Re: Anyone got their hands on the 16-35 f4 yet? (nt)

    Quote Originally Posted by yangs View Post
    me too.... read until very very poisoned in the mind already
    one photo might just push me over, but !!! no stock!
    There is at 1 shop. Stock just arrived. But I think I will hold on to it first.
    Last edited by Jeremy1; 25th February 2010 at 07:58 PM.

  18. #118
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Marina Bay
    Posts
    383

    Default Re: Anyone got their hands on the 16-35 f4 yet? (nt)

    This weekend sounds like fun....16-35 here I come!

  19. #119
    Senior Member Numnumball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Central
    Posts
    13,914

    Default Re: Anyone got their hands on the 16-35 f4 yet? (nt)

    Hi Guys, as suggested by a few.. Decided to pose a few pics and share with y'all my experience shooting with it full day..when i decided to ditch my 17-35 and 24-70 (temporarily, leaving them at home) and only bring along ONE 16-35 to accompany me throughout my short Holiday trip to HK.

    For your reference : -

    Daylight performance with this lens: -

    Taken with D700 handheld in Raw and converted to Jpeg, with most shots at 16mm,so literally this is a test at its widest focal length only.. Min PP done. (Only Minor cropping, reviving burned out areas and re-contrasting only..)

    #1 - Settings : ISO 200, F4 (wide open), 1/640 at 16mm



    #2 - Settings : ISO 100, F5.6, 1/50 at 16mm



    #3 - Settings : ISO 200, F8, 1/640 at 16mm



    #4 - Settings : ISO 720, F11, 1/250, +0.3Ev, at 16mm




    In summary imho, Pretty sharp in the center at wide open and to excellent when stopped down. 16-35 is sharper at f4 in the corners and horizontal edge compared with the 17-35 f2.8 and bearing lesser CA. Ghost and Flare is very very well controlled with Nano in place (which is one of the contributing factor that made me took the plunge). Perspective distortion is inevitable in most UWA so i go with that..

    Will try to post the night performance by tml its getting late & want to Zzzz liao..

    Hee. nites

    P.s. Sorry for the bad metering/compositioning in some of the pics as all are taken in a rush..
    I turned PRO in diaper chg!
    My Flickr|My Son

  20. #120

    Default Re: Anyone got their hands on the 16-35 f4 yet? (nt)

    just a quick test @ 16mm wide open f/4 on my d700 just now

    minimal sharpening in ps.

Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •