Nikon 16-35mm or 18-35mm

Nikon 16-35mm or 18-35mm

From a kit lens, I upgraded to Nikon 18-200mm (f/3.5-5.6) , but was looking to replace it with a wide angle zoom lens that fits my range better. The beautifully designed Nikon 16-35mm (f/4) had been my first choice, but I changed my mind at the last minute and settled on Nikon 18-35mm (f/3.5-4.5) . Here I share my thoughts leading up to my decision by comparing both lenses.

Price (on Amazon): USD1256 (16-35mm) vs. USD746 (18-35mm)
Weight: 680g (16-35mm) vs. 385g (18-35mm)
F-Stop: Constant at f/4 (16-35mm) vs. f/3.5-4.5 (18-35mm)
Vibration Reduction (VR): Yes (16-35mm) vs. No (18-35mm)

Price aside, what I particularly like about 18-35mm is its lighter weight cos I walk a lot while on trips. VR and constant f/4 on 16-35mm sounds appealing, but after careful deliberation, I realized that, as a dusky cityscape photographer mainly shooting with f/11-13 on a tripod, I don’t benefit from those features at all. It’s no point paying extra money for the things I don’t use, and this was the deciding factor to convince myself to choose 18-35mm over 16-35mm.

Oh well, I must admit that it hurt me to lose 2mm at the wide end, though, but couldn’t justify paying USD500 more just for that!


Found Value in My Post? Then, Why Not Subscribing and Getting New Posts Emailed to You?

Or, Share on Your Favourite Social Networking Platform to Help Me Spread the Love for Blue Hour Photography. Thank You!

Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on Google PlusShare on Pinterest

Get my latest posts and photos delivered to your Inbox.


Support Me on Ko-fi