That being said, when there's no clouds in the sky, this lens is a blast to use and produces amazing results

I needed to increase my shutter speed to 1/15 before I could get better results with the 17-35mm.

It is a very sharp lens and when properly matched with the right subjects, produces very impressive results.

Don't get me wrong, this is an excellent lens and you will experience great results with some practice

I use it mainly for architecture, street photography and social events, and the results are excellent

While that is the case with every other FX lens as well, in many cases there is no good DX substitute and the FX lens remains the best choice.

If you are a landscape shooter and are thinking about the 17-35, the 16-35 is the better choice

On a tighter budget, I would suggest that a DX body with any of the better DX wide zooms would be the better choice.

This lens proved to be a good choice for my D700 because of several reasons

For event photography, the 17-35 may remain the better choice.

It doesn't hurt that the price is more affordable than the 14-24mm

I've spent a long time looking to find a reasonably priced Nikon professional lens in this focal range.

So what are the good things about this lens?-The sharpness, this lens is very sharp at any focal length, some claim it's even sharper than the phenomenal Nikon 14-24mm, even though I haven't tested this claim myself, but I don't have a problem believing it.-The price is right

This lens works great in low light with still subjects and it is priced at a competitive price.

All in all this is a great compromise in weight with the 18-35 and in sharpness with the 14-24 at a reasonable price.

Other similar-sized lenses would be the mediocre 24-120mm VR (this lens is FAR better in the overlapping part of the range), the 70-300mm VR (another excellent lens and a great complement to this one) and the very nice 180mm f/2.8 AF or AF-D.For the first time in the digital era, it is possible to carry an FX camera with a relatively compact, somewhat-affordable kit that spans the range from ultra-wide at 16mm to long telephoto at 300mm and to have excellent image quality throughout the range.

Fairly sharp, the VR is great, it takes filters, and it has a very good range

If you must have only Nikon, and VR is not important, the Nikon 17-35 f2.8 is a superb lens for about the same price

But in those instances where setting up a tripod is difficult, not allowed or simply not possible, the VR on this lens will be very useful and appreciated

VR: VR is less important on a wide lens than on a telephoto.

Images are sharp, with great contrast and excellent, accurate color rendition

First off, this lens shoots amazing pictures with incredible color accuracy

I care more about whether a lens gives snappy color rendition than how sharp it is at the pixel level, but I still frequently run into lenses that I don't think are sharp enough.

I found to my dismay that the Nikon lens was not as sharp, nor did it have as good color saturation, as the cheaper Tamron lens.

I've now tried the lens on both bodies and the pictures over all focal lengths are sharp, have very pleasing bokeh, and great color rendition.

The bokeh wide open could be better, certainly not as good as a 2.8 prime or zoom

The 16-85mm VR has a tremendously versatile zoom range, an equally good VR implementation, and is to my eyes just as snappy and contrasty in terms of color rendition as this lens.

Good:- good zoom range, covers practical range below 50mm-

It's not enormous like the 14-24/2.8 and 17.35/2.8 (actually not that much bigger, but so much larger in diameter that it FEELS huge), it is very sharp, it is stunningly contrasty, and it spans a very useful zoom range from an almost-ridiculous (until you need it

The 16-85mm VR has a tremendously versatile zoom range, an equally good VR implementation, and is to my eyes just as snappy and contrasty in terms of color rendition as this lens.

The 14-24mm is truly amazing, but it's honestly a scary lens to use sometimes

Before purchasing, I've debated between this lens and the legendary 17-35mm.

The hood of the Nikkor 16-35mm is not as effective in shading this lens on a DX boy

Other similar-sized lenses would be the mediocre 24-120mm VR (this lens is FAR better in the overlapping part of the range), the 70-300mm VR (another excellent lens and a great complement to this one) and the very nice 180mm f/2.8 AF or AF-D.For the first time in the digital era, it is possible to carry an FX camera with a relatively compact, somewhat-affordable kit that spans the range from ultra-wide at 16mm to long telephoto at 300mm and to have excellent image quality throughout the range.

The 16-35mm is also lighter, less vulnerable as its front glass element can be filter-protected (when necessary in some instances), less expensive and is more useful for general use with its longer reach.

Bad distortion and not even sharp by f8 or f9.I've used many wide angles thru the years,primes and zooms for Canon,Sony,Nikon and Fuji and sadly,all this

The reason I mention the above is because after much field use, the 16-35 is the best and most practical wide angle in terms of weight, option for filter use and ruggedness

It gives me that wide angle on my full frame camera that I need, sharp, sharp and sharp.

At f/16 diffraction starts to cause some very slight softness in image quality when the image is viewed at 100%.I would definitely recommend this lens to someone who is looking for a good wide angle solution for a full frame camera and doesn't need the extra 2mm on the wide end, the constant f/2.8 aperture or the extra weight of the Nikon 14-24

I love the angle of view I am able to capture with this lens.

This lens takes fantastic images and the distortion is minimal, even at the widest setting.

It is not a lightweight lens, has a solid build, and is a good solution for the wide side of FX providing very sharp images at a price substantially less than the 14-24mm.

The images of the D700 were of course cleaner but not as sharp.

Needless to say, the images I derived from RAW files were a notch even better than the already excellent JPGs

The images of the D700 were of course cleaner but not as sharp.

The chief complaint with that lens - its slow f/5.6 max aperture at the long end - is moot in comparison to this lens, as they are equally fast or slow in the 16-35mm range.

I'm almost always on a tripod and stopped down to f/5.6 or slower

It is a well-built pro-sumer lens; focus is silent, fast, and accurate

This lens is heavy, solid built, VR works great, focus is smooth and crisp.

Sharp, fast focusing, low noise, distortion is a bit high compared to other wide angels in the same range, but nothing that cannot be fixed in Lightroom

it works a

There is some barrel distortion at 16mm, but I actually like that a little

When I don't want it, both Capture NX and Photoshop CS5 remove barrel distortion almost automatically

It has barrel distortion at 16mm but it is easily correctable in photoshop and generally doesn't create problems with landscape photography uncorrected

There is some barrel distortion at 16mm, but I actually like that a little

...... F4 not a problem as with VR slow speed hand held shots are very possible

Good speed

The shot I posted here is one of several that were shot on very slow shutter speed.

The VR is a great plus, gives you a bit more confidence at slow shutter speeds but it does little help at the dance floor with moving bodies

Instead, given the f/4 and VR feature of this lens, it is best used not as a fast lens but as a landscape or travel lens by someone who will be shooting this handheld at apertures from f/5.6-11.0 at fairly slow shutter speeds.

I am scared I am going to smash that giant front element

Any minor spherical aberration would be magnified, so it would need additional optical correction, as well; either in the form of a more complex optical formula or additional expensive aspherical elements.

Alternatively they can be made with more complex optical formulas, using more expensive aspherical elements or very expensive low-distortion glass; and therefore be very expensive.