Nikkor 18-35 vs. Nikkor 20-35

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by nrOne, Jan 27, 2005.

  1. nrOne

    nrOne Guest

    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
     
    nrOne, Jan 27, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. nrOne

    Matt Clara Guest

    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
     
    Matt Clara, Jan 27, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. nrOne

    Matt Clara Guest

    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.
     
    Matt Clara, Jan 27, 2005
    #3
  4. nrOne

    jimkramer Guest

    <Snip>
    Matt, the link was missing something.
    Jim
     
    jimkramer, Jan 27, 2005
    #4
  5. nrOne

    Matt Clara Guest

    Matt Clara, Jan 27, 2005
    #5
  6. nrOne

    jimkramer Guest

    jimkramer, Jan 27, 2005
    #6
  7. nrOne

    columbotrek Guest

    If you don't need the 18mm angle of view, the 20-35 is a better lens.
     
    columbotrek, Jan 27, 2005
    #7
  8. nrOne

    Roxy Durban Guest

    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.
     
    Roxy Durban, Jan 28, 2005
    #8
  9. nrOne

    nrOne Guest

    You are talking about 18-35 i guess?
     
    nrOne, Jan 28, 2005
    #9
  10. nrOne

    nrOne Guest

    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
     
    nrOne, Jan 28, 2005
    #10
  11. nrOne

    nrOne Guest

    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
     
    nrOne, Jan 28, 2005
    #11
  12. nrOne

    Matt Clara Guest

    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.
     
    Matt Clara, Jan 28, 2005
    #12
  13. nrOne

    nrOne Guest

    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
     
    nrOne, Jan 29, 2005
    #13
  14. nrOne

    Matt Clara Guest

    It may very well be the best lens Nikon has ever designed. Have fun!
     
    Matt Clara, Jan 29, 2005
    #14
  15. nrOne

    Roxy Durban Guest

    No, sorry...I meant the 17-35mm f/2.8 AFS.
     
    Roxy Durban, Jan 29, 2005
    #15
  16. nrOne

    nrOne Guest

    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.
     
    nrOne, Jan 29, 2005
    #16
  17. nrOne

    nrOne Guest

    That's what people say, and let me tell you that I attend to do so :)
    bye
     
    nrOne, Jan 29, 2005
    #17
  18. nrOne

    Roxy Durban Guest

    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.
     
    Roxy Durban, Jan 30, 2005
    #18
  19. nrOne

    nrOne Guest

    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
     
    nrOne, Jan 30, 2005
    #19
  20. nrOne

    Roxy Durban Guest

    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.
     
    Roxy Durban, Jan 31, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.