Nikon 16-35 f/4 VR vs Tokina 16-28 f/2.8

[Richdog]

Hi chaps. I'm looking for a new ultra-wide for landscape and architectural photography, and these two are prime contenders in the price range I am looking at. I can get the 16-35mm for £458 and the Nikon 16-35 for £607.

The Tokina is faster but basically has the same strengths/limitations as the Nikon 14-24 in terms of size, weight, and ability to user filters etc... whereas the 16-35 is smaller, takes 77mm filters, has a more flexible focal range and adds VR into the mix for sharper hand-held shots (though ideally I'd obviously be using a tripod).

The Tokina purportedly has equivalent IQ to the Nikon 14-24, whereas the 16-35, despite being no slouch, seems to have more pronounced barrel distortion at the wide end, and some softness at the other.

Any opinions appreciated.

 

[Amp34]

What do you want to use it for?

If you're shooting at night for example then the f/2.8 will be a bonus (as an example).

 

[Richdog]

What do you want to use it for?

If you're shooting at night for example then the f/2.8 will be a bonus (as an example).

Sorry Amp that was a bit negligent of me... it will be for landscape and architecture, mostly during the day time in the Alps though I'm sure in Summer when I'm not freezing my nuts off it will get some night time use.

The Tokina has a great reputation (if not for reliability, but I would have a 2 year warranty to back it up) and the constant 2.8 aperture is clearly a huge bonus, I'm just wondering how much of an issue the lack of filters would be (as it would be with the 14-24).

 

[Jase]

There are filters available for the 14-24, problem is that its 150 so if you're using other lens then you'd have to carry 2 sets of filters with you.

 

[Richdog]

There are filters available for the 14-24, problem is that its 150 so if you're using other lens then you'd have to carry 2 sets of filters with you.

Yeah, I read that there there are aftermarket "hammer and nails" solutions, but they are also very expensive and for me impractical, and as such I consider it a definite weakness. Plus remember we are talking about the Tokina, so unless the Nikon filters also fit that lens (maybe they do, I don't know) that then they would be pretty useless anyway.

 

[D.P.]

There are lots of filter options for the nikon 14-24mm, not sure about the Tokina.

Also keep your eyes open for the new Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8.

I've read the Tokina constantly de-centers itself so that is not an option for me.

Also look at the Nikon 20mm f/1.8 as a small, light, 77mm filter UWA lens.

 

[Richdog]

There are lots of filter options for the nikon 14-24mm, not sure about the Tokina.

Also keep your eyes open for the new Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8.

I've read the Tokina constantly de-centers itself so that is not an option for me.

Also look at the Nikon 20mm f/1.8 as a small, light, 77mm filter UWA lens.

The Tamron 15-30 is around 50% more expensive that the Tokina and 40% more expensive than the Nikon where I live. Given that I state in the OP that the Tokina/Nikon are in the price range I am looking at, that's not really a sensible or practical suggestion, especially when the filter system would add another 5-10% or so.

As for the filters for the 14-24, I already said above that I knew they existed, but that they are expensive, large and impractical. Plus, unless they fit the Tokina it's a moot point imo.

 

[cwgk91]

I had the 16-35 f4. Great lens, only criticism I had of it was it felt quite plasticy in my hand. Picture wise it was excellent and the VR really works well and means you don't need a tripod half the time.

 

[Richdog]

I had the 16-35 f4. Great lens, only criticism I had of it was it felt quite plasticy in my hand. Picture wise it was excellent and the VR really works well and means you don't need a tripod half the time.

Excellent just the kind of feedback I was looking for!

How do you find corner sharpness? It seems to be one of the few complaints about this lens from what I have read online, other than the distortion wide open, which is understandable and easily fixed in post.

With regards to the build quality I also have a 24-120, so as long as it's similar to that then all good I think.

 

[D.P.]

The Tamron 15-30 is around 50% more expensive that the Tokina and 40% more expensive than the Nikon where I live. Given that I state in the OP that the Tokina/Nikon are in the price range I am looking at, that's not really a sensible or practical suggestion, especially when the filter system would add another 5-10% or so.

As for the filters for the 14-24, I already said above that I knew they existed, but that they are expensive, large and impractical. Plus, unless they fit the Tokina it's a moot point imo.

You must have some strange pricing, the Tamron is cheaper than the Nikon in the US which is why I suggested it, it is also optically much better and a stop faster. You suggested the Tokina so the Tamron is an obvious option IMO.
Filters are a consideration but you have to decide how often you really need them, CPLs don't work on the wide end.

I'm also pondering which UWA to purchase but neither the nikon 16-35 or Tokina are on the short list. For me It is a choice between nikon 14-24, Tamron and nikon 20mm.


Another good choice is the nikon 18-35mm. Takes 77mm filters, is much sharper than nikon 16-35mm, much cheaper. No VR and a stop slower, o rate the 18-35 much higher than the 16-35mm really.

 

[Richdog]

You must have some strange pricing, the Tamron is cheaper than the Nikon in the US which is why I suggested it, it is also optically much better and a stop faster. You suggested the Tokina so the Tamron is an obvious option IMO.
Filters are a consideration but you have to decide how often you really need them, CPLs don't work on the wide end.

I'm also pondering which UWA to purchase but neither the nikon 16-35 or Tokina are on the short list. For me It is a choice between nikon 14-24, Tamron and nikon 20mm.

Another good choice is the nikon 18-35mm. Takes 77mm filters, is much sharper than nikon 16-35mm, much cheaper. No VR and a stop slower, o rate the 18-35 much higher than the 16-35mm really.

To give you an idea of the pricing in my situation:

Prices in UK (Amazon):

• Tokina 16-28: £653
• Nikon 18-35: £519
• Nikon 16-35: £829
• Tamron 15-30: £949
• Nikon 14-24: £1300

Prices where I live:

• Tokina 16-28: £452
• Nikon 18-35: £418
• Nikon 16-35: £605
• Tamron 15-30: £876
• Nikon 14-24: £945

As you can see, there are some marked differences in pricing... with the Tokina 16-28 and 16-35 where I live being considerably cheaper than their UK counterparts. The Tokina is often cited as being as sharp as the Nikon 14-24, which is an amazing feat given the price difference.

Please can you point me me to some professional reviews/tests from respected sites that state the 18-35 is 'much sharper' than the 16-35? I will consider the 18-35 as I hadn't put it on my radar... but the lack of VR (and to a lesser extent nano coat) could be an annoyance especially if I don't have a tripod with me and am doing indoor and outdoor architectural shots hand-held.

 

[cwgk91]

Excellent just the kind of feedback I was looking for!

How do you find corner sharpness? It seems to be one of the few complaints about this lens from what I have read online, other than the distortion wide open, which is understandable and easily fixed in post.

With regards to the build quality I also have a 24-120, so as long as it's similar to that then all good I think.

I never had any problems with my 16-35 sharpness wise. In fact sharpness got better after I dropped it and it went back to nikon for fixing Build quality probably a bit better than the 24-120, just isn't as good as my 24-70 and 70-200 which are built like tanks.

Definitely go and try one out, may be that I had one which fitted really well with my d700 at the time but worked well on my dad's d600 too.

 

[Kei]

I ran through a similar quandry and ended up going with the 20mm f1.8 prime as the image quality and extra light were too useful to pass up. If I need greater FOV than the 20 provides, I just use the 16mm fisheye.

 

[Richdog]

I never had any problems with my 16-35 sharpness wise. In fact sharpness got better after I dropped it and it went back to nikon for fixing Build quality probably a bit better than the 24-120, just isn't as good as my 24-70 and 70-200 which are built like tanks.

Definitely go and try one out, may be that I had one which fitted really well with my d700 at the time but worked well on my dad's d600 too.

Well I guess it's pretty self-explanatory why the build quality isn't as good as professional lenses that cost considerably more.

Feedback much appreciated though mate, this lens seems to get rave reviews across the web.

I ran through a similar quandry and ended up going with the 20mm f1.8 prime as the image quality and extra light were too useful to pass up. If I need greater FOV than the 20 provides, I just use the 16mm fisheye.

I do like the versatility of a zoom though for a day of different scenarios! I can easily pick up a good prime at a later stage.

 

[cwgk91]

Well I guess it's pretty self-explanatory why the build quality isn't as good as professional lenses that cost considerably more.

Feedback much appreciated though mate, this lens seems to get rave reviews across the web.

Its meant to be sharper than the old 17-35 which has alwasys been the work horse. Ha, yeah I wasnt expecting it to be up to the metal bodied lenses, dont worry but better than most amateur lenses definitely.

 

[D.P.]

To give you an idea of the pricing in my situation:

Prices in UK (Amazon):

• Tokina 16-28: £653
• Nikon 18-35: £519
• Nikon 16-35: £829
• Tamron 15-30: £949
• Nikon 14-24: £1300

Prices where I live:

• Tokina 16-28: £452
• Nikon 18-35: £418
• Nikon 16-35: £605
• Tamron 15-30: £876
• Nikon 14-24: £945

As you can see, there are some marked differences in pricing... with the Tokina 16-28 and 16-35 where I live being considerably cheaper than their UK counterparts. The Tokina is often cited as being as sharp as the Nikon 14-24, which is an amazing feat given the price difference.

Please can you point me me to some professional reviews/tests from respected sites that state the 18-35 is 'much sharper' than the 16-35? I will consider the 18-35 as I hadn't put it on my radar... but the lack of VR (and to a lesser extent nano coat) could be an annoyance especially if I don't have a tripod with me and am doing indoor and outdoor architectural shots hand-held.

Interesting pricing, for 18-35mm reviews check pretty. Ich nowhere, e.g dxo mark, lenstip, Slrgear
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Best...imes-and-zooms/Best-Landscape-lenses-for-D810


There re 2 versions, the older version is not as sharp. 18mm isnt as wide and you loose VR, the aperture is basically the same.

 

[cwgk91]

I had the 18-35 as well if youre thinking about that. Works really well in good light (had some amazing photos on my holiday in venice) and is brilliantly sharp, but does fall short in low light due to restricted aperture and lack of VR. Would definitely stretch to the 16-35 if your budget will allow

 

[Richdog]

Interesting pricing, for 18-35mm reviews check pretty. Ich nowhere, e.g dxo mark, lenstip, Slrgear
http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Best...imes-and-zooms/Best-Landscape-lenses-for-D810


There re 2 versions, the older version is not as sharp. 18mm isnt as wide and you loose VR, the aperture is basically the same.

Just saw the lenstip review... imo they got a bad copy as their criticisms seem to be at odds with almost everything else on the internet.

As for slrgear,the 18-35 has a worse overall score.