First I was considering these 4 zooms:Nikon 16-35mm f4 VR Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 Tokina 16-28mm f2.8 Sigma 12-24mm 4.5-5.6I'd love to consider Nikon 18-35 new but it's not available here in Turkey for another couple of months.After some research, Nikon 16-35 VR won 17-35 f2.8 coz it looks sharper at edges and can compensate well with VR for landscapes.Would also pick Tokina 16-28mm against Sigma 12-25 for better IQ and zoom range. I do not think I will need as extreme wide as Sigma can offer.Since I am a little limited with budget I have only two options to go:Nikon 16-35 f4 VR used ($1220) Tokina 16-28 f2.8 new (1020)Prices are local prices in Turkey converted to USD. I mainly shoot landscapes or in the city and mainly at f8-f11. From my experience with my other zooms 24-85 VR and 70-200 f4 VR, availability of VR at 16-35 zoom will allow me to shoot handheld in most cases. Also Nikon accepts filters.Tokina seems to have a better IQ and sharpness but it's bigger/heavier and do not accept filters. But at the same time it is $200 cheaper and is new with 2 years warrenty at that price.I am really stuck with which lens to choose.

I really love the IQ of 16-35 VR. As you said VR is very useful in certain situations and it can easier be used as landscape/street/indoor/family/walkaround lens. I personally change it only when I need better bokeh (less depth) or macro. In my eyes 18-32mm at f8 quality is extreme, but I shot at 16mm and 35mm with very very good results.check this:http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/%28lens1%29/373/%28lens2%29/813/%28lens3%29/370/%28brand1%29/Nikkor/%28camera1%29/792/%28brand2%29/Nikkor/%28camera2%29/792/%28brand3%29/Tokina/%28camera3%29/792Tokina is certainly less sharp at corners-borders, but it has 1/3 of a stop less light fall-off in some situations.Tokina is about 40% heavier also, and if you plan to use it on a body like D600, it won't fit so nice.For me 16-35 sits on the edge of weight/quality/usability combination. My second choice probably would be the new 18-35mm as you mentioned.

ki11ua wrote:I really love the IQ of 16-35 VR. As you said VR is very useful in certain situations and it can easier be used as landscape/street/indoor/family/walkaround lens. I personally change it only when I need better bokeh (less depth) or macro. In my eyes 18-32mm at f8 quality is extreme, but I shot at 16mm and 35mm with very very good results.check this:http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Compare-Camera-Lenses/Compare-lenses/%28lens1%29/373/%28lens2%29/813/%28lens3%29/370/%28brand1%29/Nikkor/%28camera1%29/792/%28brand2%29/Nikkor/%28camera2%29/792/%28brand3%29/Tokina/%28camera3%29/792Tokina is certainly less sharp at corners-borders, but it has 1/3 of a stop less light fall-off in some situations.Tokina is about 40% heavier also, and if you plan to use it on a body like D600, it won't fit so nice.For me 16-35 sits on the edge of weight/quality/usability combination. My second choice probably would be the new 18-35mm as you mentioned.Actually, at f/4, they are very close in performance from a sharpness standpoint at common focal lengths, except 28mm. The Tokina is generally weaker at 28mm than other FLs. Both dXo and Photozone seem to agree on this. Both are sharp at f/4 and quite so for UWAs zooms when stopped down further.Some other considerations to weigh in your decision making:- The 16-35 obviously has more range, although beyond 28mm the range is definitely not it's strong suit as you approach 35mm.- The 16-35 has quite a bit more distortion at 16mm (~-4.3), and ends up losing more of the 16mm focal length FOV with geometric distortion correction post processing than the 16-28 does (~-2.4).- The tokina's distortion is a little more complex at longer focal lengths than the Nikon's.- The 16-35 does have VR, which the Tokina is certainly missing.- The 16-35 in some cases gets red ghosting in the center of the frame on long exposures. This issue seems touch and go. Some users report the issue, other don't.-The 16-28 has a tendency to create rainbow flares around specular highlights when shooting in low light situations, the 16-35 seems to control flare well.- At wider f/stops (f/4 & f/5.6), the Tokina has less Light falloff in the corners/edges. Beyond, the Nikon has less, but at this point the falloff is not often field relevant.- The Tokina cannot easily take filters. The Nikon can.- The 16-35 Nikon has better flare and CA control than the Tokina. While the Tokina is better than the venerable 14-24 in regards to flare control, but it still flares easily in the sun with that huge front element.+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ Aaron Killen

Thanks Aaron. Have also added new Nikon 18-35mm G into comsiderstion. Which seems to be bery sharp and much smaller/lighter.

Tepacca wrote:Nikon 16-35mm f4 VR Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 Tokina 16-28mm f2.8 Sigma 12-24mm 4.5-5.6I tried 3 of these, owned 2, kept 1.I compared the Nikon 16~35 side by side with the 17~35 on a weekend trip to the Lake District. I don't use VR for landscape as I much prefer to use a tripod. Of the 2 I had a preference for the 17~35. if the 16~35 had been much smaller that might have been enough for me to prefer that, but it isn't. I like having f2.8 (not for landscape!) and I like the build of the 17~35. I had a slight preference for the IQ too, but both are excellent.I skipped the Tokina because the range is not as useful and it doesn't take filters. I have a lovely 77mm polariser and a set of Lee grads that would not fit the 16~28.The Sigma 12~24 was a fun lens but I sold it after not using it much. It just didn't suit me. I saw trhe extreme wide angle as a bit of a gimmick. I didn't take time to master it but that's because it was never my first choice for anything I do.The one I own is the 17~35, and I'm confident that for me anyway that is still the right choice. I wouldn't put you off the 16~35 though, especially if you want VR (just don't kid yourself it matches a tripod).

Thanks for reply. I am considering new Nikon 18-35 G mote and more which seems to be very sharp, light and cheaper.

Tepacca wrote:Thanks for reply. I am considering new Nikon 18-35 G mote and more which seems to be very sharp, light and cheaper.Teppacca,Good choice. This weekend, I compared the 16-28 against the new 18-35mm.  The 18-35mm put in a dominating performance. The 16-28mm is an extremely sharp lens through 24mm, but its corners are quite sharp--especially when compared to the 18-35mm.  If you ignore the edges--and the extra 2mm on the wide side (which are quite significant) and extra stop of speed are not that important to you--, these lenses are very close 18-24mm.  Actually, the 18-35mm is noticeably better at 24mm as well.  However, the 18-35mm absolutely pulls away from the 16-28mm above 24mm.If you do care about the edges, then it's no contest.I wish I had the 16-35mm to test/compare.  I would be really surprised if the 16-35mm was better than the 18-35mm over any common FLs. Of course that lens provides 16mm and VR if you need it.

Tepacca wrote:Thanks for reply. I am considering new Nikon 18-35 G mote and more which seems to be very sharp, light and cheaper.Me too actually, mainly because it is so much smaller and lighter. It would be a good option for hiking and travel. I'm not in a rush though because I also bought an Olympus OMD for travelling light so the size and weight of my SLR gear is not such a big deal. I don't think I'd buy it instead of the 17~35 so I'm not sure I need it as I have the OMD.

I had to correct some glaring errors in my last post.gatorowl wrote:Tepacca wrote:Thanks for reply. I am considering new Nikon 18-35 G mote and more which seems to be very sharp, light and cheaper.Teppacca,Good choice. This weekend, I compared the 16-28againsttothe new 18-35mm.  The 18-35mm put in a dominating performance. The 16-28mm is an extremely sharp lens through 24mm, but itscornersEDGESare quitesharpSOFT--especially when compared to the 18-35mm.  If you ignore the edges--and the extra 2mm on the wide side (which arequitesignificant) and extra stop of speed are not that important to you--, these lenses are very close 18-24mm.  Actually, the 18-35mm is noticeably better at 24mm as well.  However, the 18-35mm absolutely pulls away from the 16-28mm above 24mm.If you do care about the edges, then it's no contest.I wish I had the 16-35mm to test/compare.  I would be really surprised if the 16-35mm was better than the 18-35mm over any common FLs. Of course that lens provides 16mm and VR if you need it.