I'm thinking about buying a Nikon f2.8 20-35mm lens which was always my favorite with my D-200. But- I expect to upgrade my camera body to a full frame senor camera within the next year. Does anyone know if this lens is compatible?
I didn't see a 20-35 listed on the B&H site, so I assume that you are probably going to buy one used. If it's a DX lens, you will face the crop factor on a D700 and your images will be at 5 megapixels as opposed to 12 mp. In other words, it probably isn't the best choice if you're going to move up to full frame (FX) format. On the other hand, if the lens isn't very expensive, and you're not going to move up for a while, you might get a lot of good use out of it now. There's no black and white answer.
You may want to fill out your profile so we can see what you shoot and what equipment you already have.
Thu 05-Nov-09 08:39 PM | edited Fri 06-Nov-09 05:32 AM by Donald Kahn
My comments about crop factor and 5 megapixels only apply to DX lenses. Your prospective lens is not a DX lens, so you can disregard my post as it relates to this lens, but you should keep it in mind if you're looking at other lenses.
Welcome to Nikonians! Yes the Nikkor 20-35mm f/2.8D will work on an FX or film body. Note that the lens is sharp in the center throughout the focal length range though the corners get soft at 24mm and wider. It is also reasonably resistant to flare and ghosting, theough the 17-35mm is better. If you will be using it for landscapes the 17-35mm f/2.8D ED IF AF-S performs much better but at a significantly higher price. Good Luck and Enjoy your Nikons!
I've never shot the 17-35, but I understand it is significantly larger; it certainly is far more expensive than an excellent condition used 20-35. As for sharpness, I definitely get crips shots throughout the focal and aperture range. The "soft in the corners" should really be seen as "not as sharp as in the center" but I think it's still well above many other lenses in the same focal range. I've never looked at an image and thought, oh the corners are soft. But if I'm shooting a landscape I'll be shooting at f5.6 or better and I find everything is sharp, while if I'm shooting at f2.8 it's probably because I want to minimize the depth of field and blur the surroundings anyway. There are reviews of this lens at bythom and kenrockwell.
For me, it's been sharp and contrasty, handles beautifully, and is just a rock solid performer.
Sun 06-Dec-09 11:30 PM | edited Sun 06-Dec-09 11:33 PM by gqtuazon
Hello all. I am new to Nikonians.org. I just wanted to add
that I have a used 20-35mm f2.8D which I use on the D80. I
purchased the lens since I just purchased my D700 and should
be getting it this week from the mail. The reason I like about
this lens is because of the picture sharpness that it
produces, price and less weight compared to it's newer 17-35mm
version. I wanted a light weight set-up and I intend to use
mostly prime lenses to include the 50mm and 85mm. Using the
D80 and 20-35mm is already a great combination and I could
only imagine getting better shots with low noise on the next
pictures with the D700.
Active U.S. Navy
When I travel with my D700 I take the AF-D 20-35 f2.8 and AF-D 35-70 f2.8 rather than the modern AFS lenses. These older lenses are smaller, lighter and still perform exceptionally well. You will be pleased with the 20-35 on your FX body.
I am using D-700, 20-35mm, 14-24mm and 24 f2.8 AIS. If I would not have any lenses I would start with 24mm ($200!!). I would not buy anything in the 14-35 range till I would know what I need, what weight, need filters?, ... 20-35 is not replacement for any lens, it is just an universal lens and it stays in the bag if I need light weight (24mm AIS goes on the camera)or if I need quality (14-24 is the lens). But the 20-35 is more pleasant to shoot compared to other lenses and at f11 is can do landscape. The 24mm f2.8 AIS needs stopping down the same way.