i've heard so much great stuff about the 17-35mm lens(thanks JRP! great review!), but what about the 18-35mm? any comments? i want to know because i really just dont have the money for the 17-35mm. thanks!
I haven't seen any MTF tests of this lens, but several subjective reviews rate this lens as very good. Expect to be be at least as optically capable as the 28-105D Nikkor. It's lightweight but nicely built, having the usual polycarbonate hybrid construction typical of mid-range Nikkors. Flare resistance is very good. I don't have too many scans of shots with this lens lying around, but here is one:
Nikon N80, Kodak E100VS, Nikkor 18-35D ED, f/8, program exposure.
Flare control is pretty good, much better than for the prime wide angles I used to use on my Minolta X-700.
Hi RRowlet, I'm planning to get my first ultra-wide soon. I'm thinking of either the prime 20mm f/2.8 or the 18-35mm ED zoom. I'm particular about distortion as I like to shoot architecture. Is there any obvious distortion (barrel or pin cushion) with the lens.
>Hi RRowlet, >I'm planning to get my first >ultra-wide soon. I'm thinking of >either the prime 20mm f/2.8 >or the 18-35mm ED zoom. >I'm particular about distortion as >I like to shoot architecture. >Is there any obvious distortion >(barrel or pin cushion) with >the lens. > >Thanks in advance. > >Roz
Roz, I don't have any of the ultra wides but I do have a 35PC 2.8 Nikkor that is the best lens for architecture you can buy for under $500. One simply can not do architecture with anything but a perspective control lens; unless of course, you plan on doing a great deal of cropping out of foreground or other such trick to align the perspective. I also have the 28-105 which has almost no distortion but one still can not get around the perspective issue. Are you familiar with Nikon's PC lenses? If not, and you plan on taking your architecture photography seriously, I'd look into renting or borrowing one. Hope this helps,
The 18-35 is good value for the money and the test from the Swedish Photo magazine I referred earlier in this site says very positive things. But have you ever thought of an used Nikkor AF D 20-35 2,8 (if you can get one) ? Jalle http://www.jalle.nu
First, I don’t want to say anything bad about the 18-35 lens. As a say before, it’s good lens ans very good value for the money and perhaps it’s a little bit unfair to compare this two lenses.
The Nikkor 20-35 D IF is another story. First it’s a “prolens”, very well built (like a tank) and very god to handle. It is an extremely sharp lens especial in the center region and the distortion and flare is very good controlled. The color rendering and contrast is magnificent. And yes, the speed is important to. Just not only for the speed also for the high optical standard and design the manufacturer must achieve to build a good high speed lens.
But it has not the 18 mm wide and the close focus distance is not so short (50 cm) as the18-35. It’s also more difficulty to handle pol.filters if you use the original shade (HB8).
So what I meant was, take a look if you have the possibility, maybe then you se and understand what I mean. The problem (at least her in Sweden) is that the 20-35 2,8 is very coveted and hard to get especial to a reasonable price.
I know I am coming into this thread a little late but for anyone interested, Amateur Photographer (UK weekly magazine) done a group test of 8 wide zooms including the 18-35mm Nikkor and lenses from Tokina, Canon, Minolta, Pentax etc. They gave the 18-35mm a "best buy" rating along with the Tokina 20-35mm f2.8 and the Tok.19-35mm f3.5/4.5. One comment was: "If you want sharpness, this lens will make you happy. Tiny details in the images spring out of the trannies, with blistering edge definition. This is helped by the crisp contrast and truly faithful colour rendition..."
I can testify to this as I have owned this lens too...
#10. "RE: what about the Nikon 18-35mm?" | In response to Reply # 9
Sat 23-Jun-01 01:37 PM
Without pointing the finger at you, it is amazing how many people need 99% assurance from a review, when it quite self evident what kind of a lens this is and how pace setting it has quickly become. It even outperforms all other manufacturers 20-35 zooms, it outperformed the Tamron but that lens had better body armour. Have fun
It's quite funny that you should say that but I, for one, have long since abandoned the idea of listening to reviewers in magazines. (this website has helped me enough when I needed advice on equipment
I only added it because I thought someone might be remotely interested
#13. "RE: what about the Nikon 18-35mm?" | In response to Reply # 11
Sun 24-Jun-01 03:51 PM
Neil, don't get me wrong, I think reviews can be very helpful but provide only a guide to a lens true value. Yet despite this obvious point there are people even in this forum who will not try out some gear because of certain forum reviews. I see web reviews and magazines as providing some kind of a balance, though it is ironic as that magazine you mentioned is heavily sponsored by Canon.
I am glad you bought to our attention this review as it helps support those who think highly of this modest but power packed lens. Cheers
Hi It got the rating "TopClass" in a swedish mag. They always do MTF tests and it is sure sharp across. They even claimed it to be as sharp as lenses with fixed length. Go for it, I will. It is almost cheap as I see it. Best regads Johan
According to various reliable reports, the 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 AF-D is not the most sharp of the Nikkor wide-angle zooms; which is by no means to say it is bad, specially when stopped down. Go for it. Yes, both the 17-35mm f/2.8D AF-S and the 20-35mm f/2.8 AF-D zooms are sharper to the naked eye (no need for MTF tables); but one has to pay a lot more for either of these two lenses. Have a great time JRP (Nikonian at the north-eastern Mexican desert) My profile Previous photographic journey, before Nikonians: A Brief Love Story