Michael Weber was enthusiastic and I now

(Test only on FX cam carried out)
Do I need a 4 / 16-35 VR, if you already hold a 2.8 / 14-24 in the portfolio? With this question, I went many months pregnant. The VR would be helpful in significantly longer exposure times. The filter thread with 77mm missing on 14-24 eg for Polfiltereinsatz. The 14-24 is a bit of a glass block with overweight in the front area. The Geli has on 14-24 no protective function if it will work closely with other photographers times. The 16-35 is stronger vignetting and distortion.
Then I read a report from Michael Weber (imagepower.de) through this lens that he tested on his D3x. Well, after this test were gone all my doubts and I ordered immediately the 16-35 at Amazon. Although I have only been a few days, but now I know that I will give this baby to any more as the 14-24. Both lenses complement each other and have clear priorities in certain areas, if you willing it that best / optimal extract.

The Geli of 16-35 is not greater than that of the 14-24, but the lens is curved substantially less, smaller in diameter and is located further back.

Being able to spend about 1000 euro for lenses for amateurs with the opportunity, I think this lens despite visible distortion (so what ?. There are patches if it should interfere too much) for a very good recommendation. Also vignetting I see today as a big problem. Much more interesting is the resolution, especially in FX-Cams with 24 MP and DX-Cams from 12 MP. On the D7000 I have not yet, however, 16-35 tested. But at the D3 / D700 and I'm very satisfied with the resolution of 16-35. Of course (U) WW-zooms are not sharp right into the corners. How could they, to have the light / image on a flat plane rather than a curved "retina" project them with such elaborate structures?

Practice: So far I have the lens from F5.6 to F8 used. Resolution on D3 very good, no CA in the corners, the increasing uncertainty in the outermost corners, I see as problematic. The VR is very useful. Freehand 1/4 "with VR at 16mm and ensures crisp focus. With VR at 16mm sharp pictures at one second exposure without a tripod are possible if you concentrate. I was thrilled. Unusual are the sounds of the VR. I can not hear anything and the is unusual in the existing VR in other Nikon lenses. Presumably, this is due to the smaller optical assembly.

In a simple test of the two lenses with 16mm at max. maximum aperture of the respective lens (F2.8 or F4) in infinity area (persons in the back) resulted in Pixelpeeping with 100%:
- Resolution in the center: there is no difference
- Resolution in the screen area / corners: the 14-24 is slightly better, but I had to look twice to be sure. Negligible at usual output sizes.
- Distortion: 16-35 something (ww-typical, but not dramatically, except for architecture, there striking), 14-24 better corrected arched, "straighter" lines.
- Ca: not recognizable

Conclusion: strong buy recommendation. Who needs a little less focal length, better resolution (especially in the border area), less distortion buys the 14-24 - more likely, if not yet available. If you already have a 14-24 and even growth for the display case should look for the 16-35 view closer. I almost want to promise that the 16-35 is often put on the Cam, as the 14-24.