This is not Nikon’s first ultra-wide FX zoom. When the full-frame D3 body was launched Nikon also introduced the spectacular 14-24mm f2.8, a lens so good that this 16-35mm actually has quite a tough act to follow.

Perhaps the biggest problem with the existing 14-24mm, though is its cost. With a list price of over £1500, it’s a serious investment. It’s also a big, ungainly lens, and unlike this new model, it doesn’t have VR.

On paper, then, the new 16-35mm is an attractive alternative. It’s cheaper and lighter, and although the maximum aperture is lower at f4 versus f2.8, the Vibration Reduction system should make up for that. Perhaps its biggest advantage, is its focal length range. It doesn’t go quite as wide as the 14-24mm, but with a maximum focal length of 35mm, it’s just that little bit more versatile as a ‘walk around’ lens.

But all these advantages are relative. With a length of 125mm and a weight of 685g, this is still a big lens. It has the characteristic ‘trumpet’ shape of Nikon’s latest FX zooms: long and fat at the front and narrower where it fixes to the body. The extra length means that there’s plenty of space for the zoom and focus rings, though, so if you don’t mind the bulk you’ll find this an easy lens to handle.

Zooming and focusing are both internal. This means the length doesn’t change as you zoom and there are no extending barrels. Filters won’t rotate as you focus, either, though the lens’s extreme viewing angle means you’ll need to use a super-wideangle filter mount. It beats the 14-24mm, though, which has a permanent lens hood and wildly convex front element that defeats conventional filter systems altogether.

When you add this to the VR system, you’ve got a lens which doesn’t necessarily match the extreme performance of the older 14-24mm, but which could prove more practical in everyday use.

It’s still not cheap, but in this territory optical quality does cost a lot of money. You could look at Sigma’s rather amazing 12-24mm lens, which isn’t much more than half the price and goes wider than either of Nikon’s ultra-wideangles. It’s a few years old now, though, and unproven on the latest generation of full-frame DSLRs. Or you could take a look at Nikon’s older 18-35mm zoom, which sells for around £500 and is much smaller and lighter, though its design dates back to Nikon’s film cameras when know-how and expectations were lower.

Final Verdict The 16-35mm is not as ‘extreme’ as Nikon’s 14-24mm, but it is cheaper and rather more practical for everyday use. OVERALL

Our lens reviewer, and technical expert, Rod is a veritable photographic encyclopaedia. His illustrious CV has seen him write for many mags, websites and journals.