i'm looking for a lightweight wide angle zoom lens for my D700 and I'm interested in the 20-35mm lens which is smaller than 16-35 or 17-35mm and lighter. also looks better in my opinion.
How is it optically? I've heard mixed stories? what are pros and cons of this lens and how does it compare to the 17-35?
Lastly, what other alternatives would you recommend? (third party ok)
I have used the 16-35 during my trip to arizona/utah and loved it but it's just too big..
The 20-35/2.8 is a great lens, but it is not small or light. It's built similarly to the 85mm f/1.4 AF-D and 28mm f/1.4 AF-D lenses... very solid and heavy materials. It's a little bit smaller and lighter than the 17-35, but not by much.
If you're looking for a lightweight solution for your D700 that fits in your pocket, do what I did: get a 20mm f/2.8 AF-D.
i tried the 20-35 at a camera store and it felt surprisingly light to me (i've owned both 85mm and 28mm f1.4). I'm trying to get a zoom lens for now..i've owned the voightlander 20mm for half a year and didn't use it that much...
If you're mainly using it for landscapes, which typically means you'll be stopped down a bit, I would suggest the thrifty, yet underrated Tamron 17-35/2.8-4. Hard to beat for the price. It's compact and light.
jaehoppa wrote:
i tried the 20-35 at a camera store and it felt surprisingly light to me (i've owned both 85mm and 28mm f1.4). I'm trying to get a zoom lens for now..i've owned the voightlander 20mm for half a year and didn't use it that much...
I'd agree with that statement - it's pretty light to me, I have absolutely no problem carrying it around for a day of shooting. But that's in comparison to lugging around an 80-200 & 28-70. I used to have the 18-35 and I was always handling it with kid gloves, the 20-35 feels much more durable.
And image quality is pretty good, obviously you get the additional half-stop over the 18-35. I haven't tried the 17-35 yet, I'm sure it's better than the 20-35 but it's also twice the cost.
The main disappointment is the minimum focus distance. If you're used to more modern ultrawides, like the 17-35, you will probably unconsciously believe that all lenses of this category can allow you to shove it in close for dramatic perspective distortion. Not so with the 20-35. It's minimum focus is about twice that of more current specimens. That's what hurts it for me, at any rate. But when I had one, I did love it.
wembley wrote:
I bought a used copy of the 20-35 for a trip to northern Az in April.
Used a step-up ring and put on a 82mm circular polarizer to prevent too much vignetting.
It worked well for my needs on the trip and I used it on the D700. Vignetting at f2.8 but it was used nearly always stopped down to f11 or so.
No experience with other w/a zooms.
Flare is a problem. The 1st tree shot I got really lucky to not have a glare issue.
Samples
i actually saw your pics as i was searching for info..
your pics make me nostalgic for the southwest. I went to Utah and arizona and I absolutely loved it..
anyway, thanks alot for the photos!
After looking for a wide angle lens I went with the 20-35mm but my reason maybe different from yours. I particularly hate distortion. Some can be corrected easily some not. I am not much of a wide angle shooter but felt I needed to have one in the bag just in case. So when I began my research I looked at the 17-35mm, 20-35mm and the 14-24mm. Most reviews you will read describe the sharpness of the 14-24mm as being amazing. I took some test shots with it and agree it has great image quality however the distortion at the wide end for me was simply unacceptable the 17-35mm had less distortion than the 14-24mm but price ended up dictating the purchase. You can find some good deals on the 20-35mm and my copy has almost no distortion at the wide end. I realize that as the field of view becomes wider distortion is the trade off but for me 20mm was plenty wide and at a price of around $600 used its tough to beat against the other two lenses at $1000 +. Also did I mention the ability to accept filters....
The knock against the Nikon 20-35 f2.8 was always that it had too much CA, but nowadays that issue can be easily addressed in-camera (JPEG) or in post-processing.
This thread got me antsy... Until yesterday I was using the 20mm f/2.8 AFD and 35mm f/2.0 AFD primes, but I'm in the process of switching to the 20-35/2.8. Previously, I owned the 12-24 f/4 Tokina on DX, and used to borrow my dad's 20-35/2.8 in my early film days. In this focal range I think I prefer the flexibility of a zoom.
Anyhow, I'm trying and buying a local used 20-35/2.8 later this morning. (It comes with the lens hood and case, too!)
You're all to blame. I'll post some shots later today.
I bought a Nikkor 20-35 f/2.8 when I had a D100. Sold it and bought a 17-35 when I bought a D2x. The 20-35 was known for its low distortion, and popular with photo journalists at the time. I found the 17-35 to be sharper and have less chromatic abberation.
I shot with the 20-35/2.8 a LOT today, and I think I like it just as much as my previous 20mm f/2.8 AFD and 35mm f/2 AFD lenses.
Some notes:
The lens is sharp at f/2.8, but corner sharpness doesn't happen until f/4-5.6ish, depending on how close you are to the point of focus (close subjects present more noticeable corner softness... not an issue for landscapes IMO). At f/8, it goes from "sharp enough" to "sharp enough to shave with."
Color, contrast, and light falloff are all VERY good on the D700... the lens is punchy (lots of color = win!), and blue hues are magical via this lens with a 77mm Nikon CPL-II filter. Light falloff is present wide open at f/2.8 @ 20mm, but by f/5.6 @ 20mm, dark corners go away. Falloff is less present @ 35mm, and gone by f/4.
CA is subtle, but definitely there on highlighted edges... but it's easy to correct in Lightroom and easier to correct in Nikon's CaptureNX. Backlit edges were the most noticeable and most unpleasant instances of CA, but again, it's an easy fix if you're not lazy like me.
About distortion... I wasn't able to find any. None at all. This lens is AWESOME at controlling distortion! As with any wide lens, watch out for vertical parallax when aiming up or down from the horizon. Keep people (especially ladies) away from the edge of the frame on the wide end; they'll thank you later for making the camera NOT "add 20 pounds" on their shots!
The 20-35/2.8 flares a bit in direct sunlight, but it's a pleasant look... it's not nasty ghosting like you'd see on the 85/1.8 AFD in a similar lighting situation. If you don't dig flare, this ain't the lens for you unless you scout your locations in advance and ensure that the sun is at your back when you're on-location. Using the hood minimizes flare of course, but it doesn't avert it completely. You'll see it in the viewfinder though, so it's easy to watch for.
You're welcome! I am loving this lens on my D700. Here's two versions of the same shot (20mm @ f/7.1, spot metered off of the golden-hour light on the treetops)... really nice colors retained by this lens/body combo!
