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!