Nikon 16mm-35mm f/4 vs. 18mm-35mm f/3.5-4.5

S

Scott Ramsey

Senior Member
I am looking for some real world advice on which of these lenses to buy for landscapes. Other than the obvious price and range difference, I am finding conflicting reviews. Rockwell says they are basically identical in performance; Dxomark scores the 18-35 at 25 vs. 22 for the 16-35; Camera Labs seems to think the 18-35 is a better lens; and the list goes on. What do you guys think? I would even be open to hearing about comparable non-Nikkor lenses.
thanks
 
hark

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
I have the Nikon 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G and love it (there is also a Nikon 18-35 f/3.5-4.5 'D' that isn't nearly as sharp according to reviews so make sure you keep that in mind). The Nikon 18-35G doesn't have the constant f/4 aperture of the Nikon 16-35, but it is a good, lighter-weight alternative to it. The 18-35G lacks VR so you'd need to decide how important that is to you.

Sigma recently released a viable contender... the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8. For the price, it is definitely worthy of consideration. Read up on the reviews for it to see if it interests you.

Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 DC HSM Lens for Nikon 210-306 B&H Photo
 
J

J-see

Senior Member
I'm pondering about the same dilemma. I need a wide for the FX and am considering one of both. The 18-35 is sharper but that only starts to show on cams like the D800 or D810. The rest is not that drastic. They sadly don't have any stats for the D750 yet which is why I'm stalling my decision. On the other hand; sharpness is nice but 16 instead of 18 for landscapes is probably nicer. Then again, it's quite some money for that 2mm.
 
J

J-see

Senior Member
Btw, if you want to check the lens sharpness, you need to ignore the DxOMark score and look at the optical metric scores for your cam.
 
S

Scott Ramsey

Senior Member
yes those are my same issues. I am using a Rokinon 24mm f/1.4 at the present and find it a great lens but I need the versatility of a zoom and the wider 16 or 18. I am leaning toward the 16-35 but wanted to hear some other opinions before buying either. It's not like there is a Black Friday sale going on for these lenses, wish there were.
 
J

J-see

Senior Member
I was using my DX 10-24mm but got tired of being limited in range on the FX and having massive vignetting and distortion. But I liked the 10mm. I intended to keep using the D3300 for landscapes but got so hooked to the D750, all the D3300 does is collect dust.
 
hark

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Photohiker said:
thanks for the info, the Sigma is for crop sensors and I am looking for a FF lens
Click to expand...

Ah...okay. Missed that you want it for FX. Sigma and Tokina both make wide angle zooms for FX.




 
Marcel

Marcel

Happily retired
Staff member
Super Mod
If you want wide, the best is the 14-24. Less wide, the 16-35 which is constant f4 and has VR and will take 77mm filters. Then there is the 18-35 which is lighter and has VR. I can't speak for the 18-35 but I have both the 14-24 and 16-35 and I can tell you that the quality is very very, did I just write very very close... :)

I think as fas as quality, they are not far from each others. When you listen to all the test, they usually agree that the center sharpness is almost equal but it's the corner sharpness that will be improved with the better lenses. But on the other hand, then you look at a photograph, do you just stare at the corners to see if they are sharp or not? I think that getting a few mm wider can be more important than sharper corners, and so is using regular filters.

But hey, we're all allowed our own opinion, and this is just mine.
 
J

J-see

Senior Member
I don't see Lens metric scores but it's probably the same. It's the second tab for me in camera lens ratings. When I get the list, the first scores are always the DxOMark scores. Next to it is optical metric scores. If you click that, you see the specifics for the selected cam + lens combination.
 
S

Scott Ramsey

Senior Member
J-see said:
I don't see Lens metric scores but it's probably the same. It's the second tab for me in camera lens ratings. When I get the list, the first scores are always the DxOMark scores. Next to it is optical metric scores. If you click that, you see the specifics for the selected cam + lens combination.
Click to expand...

can you give me a link, I am not seeing anything called "optical metrics scores" on the DxOMark pages? thanks
 
S

Scott Ramsey

Senior Member
Marcel said:
If you want wide, the best is the 14-24. Less wide, the 16-35 which is constant f4 and has VR and will take 77mm filters. Then there is the 18-35 which is lighter and has VR. I can't speak for the 18-35 but I have both the 14-24 and 16-35 and I can tell you that the quality is very very, did I just write very very close... :)

I think as fas as quality, they are not far from each others. When you listen to all the test, they usually agree that the center sharpness is almost equal but it's the corner sharpness that will be improved with the better lenses. But on the other hand, then you look at a photograph, do you just stare at the corners to see if they are sharp or not? I think that getting a few mm wider can be more important than sharper corners, and so is using regular filters.

But hey, we're all allowed our own opinion, and this is just mine.
Click to expand...

thanks for your first hand insight, I would go with the 14-24 except that I shoot a good bit with a cpl and I think the extra reach of the 16-35 would better suit my needs
 
J

jay_dean

Senior Member
Photohiker said:
Rockwell says they are basically identical in performance
Click to expand...
I always take what Kenneth says with a very large dose of salt. I have the 16-35 f/4, and i think its a fantastic lens, and have great results with it. Can't comment on the 18-35, but if you did happen to choose the 16-35, i doubt you'd regret it
 
S

Scott Ramsey

Senior Member
jaydean said:
I always take what Kenneth says with a very large dose of salt. I have the 16-35 f/4, and i think its a fantastic lens, and have great results with it. Can't comment on the 18-35, but if you did happen to choose the 16-35, i doubt you'd regret it
Click to expand...

Actually he says that but goes on to say that the 16-35 is the "World's Sharpest Ultrawide Zoom" even rivaling the 14-24. You are right, you have to take them all with a grain of salt since you don't know who is getting paid and by whom but they all do provide some information.
 
hark

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
Marcel said:
If you want wide, the best is the 14-24. Less wide, the 16-35 which is constant f4 and has VR and will take 77mm filters. Then there is the 18-35 which is lighter and has VR.
Click to expand...

Marcel, unfortunately the 18-35 doesn't have VR. :(

You are right that the best is the 14-24. Too bad it doesn't accept front filters. Personally I love landscape photos and love using either the screw on filters or Cokin filters. Not allowing those front filters is a drawback for my preferences.
 
T

TedG954

Senior Member
We all have our favorites. Mine is the 16-35/4VR. But.... I have never compared it to the 18-35G in actual use. You can read all the reviews, but I don't trust them either. Go to sites like Flickr and Pixel Peeper to see actual photos taken with the lenses and the comments of the real life photographers.

The 18-35G might be a better lens than the 16-35/4VR, but I'll never know.
 
R

Rick M

Senior Member
The Nikon 18-35 G is absolutely fantastic, don't let the price fool you. Sharpness next to the 14-24 in a nice light compact body. It would be my second choice to the 14-24, I've sold many of these,


Forestport wide.jpg
 
Top