 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / January 2005Nikkor 18-35 vs. Nikkor 20-35
Hi, I am considering to buy one of these two lenses: Nikon Zoom Super Wide Angle 20-35mm f/2.8 D-IF Aspherical Auto Focus Lens Nikon Zoom Wide Angle AF Zoom Nikkor 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5D ED-IF Autofocus Lens Let me just tell you that my first choice would be the Nikkor 17-35 but that lens is way too expensive for me at this moment so I am considering of buying one of this two lenses. The 18-35 is cheaper 350.-usd then the 20-35, and it is new. The 20-35 is used but in very good condition. The body?s that I shall put these lenses on are D70 and F90X, and my other Nikkor optics are proconsumer so I want to get fantastic results from my wide-angle lens too. Please give me a short brief about this lenses and what can I expect from them. Thanks, Tom > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Thanks, > Tom The 18-35 can produce excellent results, but not wide open at 18mm. Then, the corners are _mush_. I took this shot with it, and am satisfied it's a sharp shot. I've printed it out to 20 x 30, and you can see some softness then, but that's a lot to push a 35mm velvia slide: http://www.shuttercity.com/ShowPhoto.cfm  SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com <snip> > The 18-35 can produce excellent results, but not wide open at 18mm. Then, > the corners are _mush_. I took this shot with it, and am satisfied it's a > sharp shot. I've printed it out to 20 x 30, and you can see some softness > then, but that's a lot to push a 35mm velvia slide: > http://www.shuttercity.com/ShowPhoto.cfm Sorry, I didn't really finish my thoughts before posting. Ultimately I was not happy with the 18-35 wide open and I sold it and turned around and bought its big brother, the 17-35. Paid $1000 for it on ebay. It is without a doubt my sharpest lens, and I do own several well regarded primes. I've never tried the 20-35, but I've heard people speak well of it here on this group. SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com <Snip> Matt, the link was missing something. Jim > <Snip> > Matt, the link was missing something. > Jim Doh! http://www.shuttercity.com/ShowPhoto.cfm?PhotoID=61694 >> <Snip> >> Matt, the link was missing something. >> Jim > > Doh! http://www.shuttercity.com/ShowPhoto.cfm?PhotoID=61694 Much better, but don't you worry the buildings will collapse on you? ;-) Jim > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I've never tried the 20-35, but I've heard people speak well of it here on > this group. I have one myself, but I have been a bit disappointed with the wide open performance. It is remarkably sharp at f/8 and f/11, but then so are most lenses. I wonder if I have a poor sample, or if something got jiggled too hard when the previous owner shipped it to me? I have been thinking about getting the 12-24mm DX to replace it. SignatureGoogle is a proliferator of hate speech, slander and other disgraceful texts. Google allows their system to be used for anonymous trolling without consequence to offenders. Google should be avoided >> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > I have been thinking about getting the 12-24mm DX to replace it. You are talking about 18-35 i guess? >> I have one myself, but I have been a bit disappointed with the wide open >> performance. It is remarkably sharp at f/8 and f/11, but then so are most [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You are talking about 18-35 i guess? No, sorry...I meant the 17-35mm f/2.8 AFS. SignatureGoogle is a proliferator of hate speech, slander and other disgraceful texts. Google allows their system to be used for anonymous trolling without consequence to offenders. Google should be avoided >>> I have one myself, but I have been a bit disappointed with the wide open >>> performance. It is remarkably sharp at f/8 and f/11, but then so are [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > No, sorry...I meant the 17-35mm f/2.8 AFS. Well I bought it yesterday and we shall see, people say that 17-35 is the best nikkor ever but until I don't get it to try it myself I can't be sure about that. >>> You are talking about 18-35 i guess? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the best nikkor ever but until I don't get it to try it myself I can't be > sure about that. I'm actually going to send mine up to the local agents and get them to check out if it is within tolerances. If it isn't, I'm going to have to find a way of either getting rid of it, or maybe get them to repair it. I don't think I will buy another top-end lens without testing it out first. SignatureGoogle is a proliferator of hate speech, slander and other disgraceful texts. Google allows their system to be used for anonymous trolling without consequence to offenders. Google should be avoided >>>> You are talking about 18-35 i guess? >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I don't think I will buy another top-end lens without testing it out > first. Yes that is true, but in my case this lens costs in my local Nikon store 3000.-usd, and I have paid for this one 900.-usd so I think there is no way that I am going to pay 3 or 4 times higher price just to test this lens, if I am not pleased with it I can sell it any time for that price. Cheers, Tom >> I don't think I will buy another top-end lens without testing it out >> first. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Cheers, > Tom Sounds familiar... I got mine for about half of the price new. It's in very good condition and it's very sharp, but I am just a tad disappointed with the sharpness wide open. At f/8 the pictures are so sharp you can almost cut your eyes open on them! Hopefully yours will be okay. SignatureSave photography - shoot a roll of film today! >>> I don't think I will buy another top-end lens without testing it out >>> first. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Hopefully yours will be okay. Thanks for your wishes, I have read about that problem some people had, and I hope that I am not going to be one of them :( Tom > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > primes. > I've never tried the 20-35, but I've heard people speak well of it here on Yes, well I can buy 20-35 for 700$ and I did not see 17-35 for 1000$ even on eBay. Is it not a risk to buy that expensive used lens over the eBay? And about 18-35, I thought so too because all my other optics are Nikkor proconsumer and if I buy 18-35 there will be a difference in quality of the pictures. Your photo looks great, but what's with the other ones? One look?s great and ten are ruined I supose. Some day I will get 17-35 but until that day I need to buy a cheaper wide-angle lens even if it is 20mm 2.8 AF-D. Cheers, Tom > > <snip> > > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Cheers, > Tom I wouldn't say 10 are ruined, my problem is I like the wide angle so much I was using it for casual snaps with aperture wide open, and then the corners are soft, and that bugs me. The 18-35 is a prosumer lens, capable of excellent results, but you'd better be ready to tripod mount and stop down to achieve them. The 17-35 kicks butt any way you use it. When I was shopping for them, $1000 was what they were going for on ebay, some a little less, some a little more. Mine came from US News and World Report photographer Jim Lo Scalzo: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/photography/portfolios/loscalzo/portfolio_scal.htm The lens is a little beat up, but the glass is perfect and if functions perfectly. It is a lot to spend, but you won't regret it, unless you tend to complain about heavy equipment, 'cause the lens isn't light. Considering the price difference, and the quality available from the lens, the 18-35 is actually a great deal. SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com >> > <snip> >> > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > is > actually a great deal. Well let me just tell you that I found 17-35 for a good price today and bought it :) I don't mind using heavy equipment cause my 80-200 2.8 and F90X are pretty heavy so this is going to be a light one in my bag. The bag carries Manfrotto pro on it so only the tripod is heavier then the whole bag. I am very happy of the today's results and my doubt?s are over now :) Thanks for the assistance Cheers, Tom <snip> > Well let me just tell you that I found 17-35 for a good price today and > bought it :) It may very well be the best lens Nikon has ever designed. Have fun! SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com > <snip> > >> Well let me just tell you that I found 17-35 for a good price today and >> bought it :) > > It may very well be the best lens Nikon has ever designed. Have fun! That's what people say, and let me tell you that I attend to do so :) bye If you don't need the 18mm angle of view, the 20-35 is a better lens. > I am considering to buy one of these two lenses: > Nikon Zoom Super Wide Angle 20-35mm f/2.8 D-IF Aspherical Auto Focus Lens > Nikon Zoom Wide Angle AF Zoom Nikkor 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5D ED-IF Autofocus Lens > If you don't need the 18mm angle of view, the 20-35 is a better lens. No, I don't think I need that angle of view. I have no experience with the 20-35 so I can only guess from the things you say or I read in compendium or on the net. Thanks, Tom |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.