about | support
home
 

Search Used

Nikon 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5D IF-ED AF

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
16 76768 Nov 28, 2010
Recommended By Average Price
94% of reviewers $382.44
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
7.40
8.30
8.7
1998NCP_180

Specifications:
ED glass element reduces chromatic aberrations providing superior optical performance - even at maximum aperture

Focus distance of 1 foot to infinity is ideal for landscape, snapshot, candid, environmental, close-up and full length portrait photography

Nikon D-type design provides precise distance information for flash and ambient light exposure processes

Internal Focusing (IF) design for smooth and fast autofocus


 


          
Marsellus W
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jun 12, 2007
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
Review Date: Nov 28, 2010 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 7 

 
Pros: - Decent optics for the money - Very fast AF - Aperture ring, so it works on almost any Nikon (D)SLR ever made. - Nothing moves externally during AF
Cons:
- Build quality is merely acceptable - Completely loose focus ring - Lot of fringing around highlights - Weird pointy shape of defocused light sources - 77mm filter ring makes this lens take up a lot of space in your bag - Same holds for the MASSIVE lens hood - Price for a new one is too high

Used on D700. I paid EUR 275 second-hand for an absolutely mint one.

This is the more affordable brethren of the F/2.8 17-35 AF-S.

Build quality is not very good. I think it's quite solid in real terms, but it feels very plasticy. The focus ring is completely undamped. It's plastic all the way. Build quality wise, it's about the same as the 18-70 DX lens: nothing real bad, but mounted on the solid D700 the difference in build quality between lens and camera automatically grabs your attention. Having it used quite a lot in sometimes very adverse conditions, it still looks and works as if it were new. So build quality might actually be better than it appears. It feels a little heavier than you might think.

It's at its shortest at 30mm, extending just 2mms towards the 35mm setting and about 10mms towards the wide end. The zoom ring is smooth but very lightly damped. No zoom creep, not even if you try.

It focuses insanely fast, instantly, AF-S fast. Really. It also focuses close (33cm, just over 1 ft). From closest to infinity is less than a 90 degree turn, and only two-and-a-bit turns for the in-camera screwdriver.

Wide-open image quality is definitely usable, but not great. Stopped-down to F/5.6 and beyond it's very good - not significantly worse than its big brother the 17-35 AF-S (I tried). The wide end is always a little better than the 35mm end. Corner softness is an issue, but only in the very extreme FX corners, and goes away completely by F/8.

It has some barrel distortion at 18mm, which eases out to 35mm where it is essentially distortion free. As with most wide-angle zooms the distortion is not easily corrected; some minor waviness always remains.

It has a surprisingly low amount of chromatic aberration. However, blooming (fringing) around light sources in night shots is quite severe, especially halfway from the center and beyond. From F/8 this largely disappears. Wide-open it has lots of coma at the shortest focal lengths, rendering light sources in the frame as weird pizza-slice-shaped objects pointing towards the center. At normal viewing distances/magnifications no one would ever notice though. On slide film, projected HUGE (6x4m) with a Zeiss projector I can see it, because I know where to look. Others don't.

It is very insusceptible to flaring and ghosting, so I always leave the humongous lens hood at home.

Conclusion: the new price of around 700 EUR/$ is too high. Stopped-down this lens is capable of producing really excellent results. For landscape photography this is a viable lightweight, lower-cost alternative to the 17-35. When you need wider apertures this lens just doesn't entirey cut it, although it's never bad. If your mainstay will be around 35mms, look somewhere else. Build quality is a little lacking. Because of its hood and 77mm filter ring this lens takes up a lot of space in your bag.



Nov 28, 2010
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Marsellus W to your Buddy List  
svx94
Offline
[ X ]



Registered: Mar 25, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 657
Review Date: Aug 16, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Very light, good IQ
Cons:
loose lens hood, so-so build.

I was looking at Nikon's new bodies for a while, but didn't jump in because of lens choices. I heard about good things about this lens, and found a NEW one at a good price, which triggered me to buy it with a D700...

I have the Canon EF-S 10-22, which is an excellent lens on my 20D. Comparing the 18-35 with the Canon, it is at least a match in all aspect, including IQ, build, focus, etc. The Nikon has the lens hood included, where the Canon is an extra. The Nikon is also a little smaller in size.

I took some test shots for typical landscape and indoor situation. The distortion seems well controlled and little better than the 10-22 (which is excellent already). Color, contrast are at least as good as the 10-22. I took some shots at F-3.5, 11 and 22. At F11, it produce the best sharpness, but at F22, it is not bad at all. F3.5 show a little edge softness (far corner).

I can afford the 14-24, but several aspects turned me off:
1. Weight and size - because I only use ultra-wide once a while, I don't want to carry a big/heavy one;
2. I need c-pl, ND or G-ND for landscape, the 14-24 won't take regular filters;
3. Price, of course.

In general, I like the 18-35mm a lot. Because it is very light, it may get some real use Smile

Cheers!


Aug 16, 2008
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add svx94 to your Buddy List  
veroman
Offline
Buy and Sell: On



Registered: Aug 19, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 3803
Review Date: Mar 26, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: • Sharp • Quick • Compact • Light • Nicely built
Cons:

I purchased only two lenses when I first bought my D2x. One was the remarkable f/2.8 35-70. The other was this one, the 18-35 f/3.5-4.5.

I read many reviews and was hesitant to purchase it at first. Some of the reviews had severely downgraded the lens' performance wide open at any focal length, but particularly at the extremes. Many cited Tamron's 17-35 f/2.8-4 as a better buy. Most thought the lens' border performance was, well, downright bad.

I decided I wanted to put a Nikon on my Nikon, so I bought it anyway. I have no regrets. This lens has proved itself to be a stellar performer under 99% of the shooting conditions I find myself in. I have not found it to be significantly worse wide open compared to stopped down a bit. I do not find the build to be "less than average," and I have seen few instances of ghosting, flare, CA, etc. I have no complaints about the border sharpness.

The 18-35 is simply an excellent lens that I think is an excellent value for the money. It could be the sample-to-sample variations of this particular lens are just more extreme than usual; hence, the nature of some of the reviews.


Mar 26, 2008
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add veroman to your Buddy List  
wb4h
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Feb 18, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 20
Review Date: Feb 26, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $279.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: This lens is sharp on my D200. and impressive on my N80.
Cons:
Why Nikon would put a huge filter adapter on this compact lens is beyond me.

Bought this lens from Sammy's and is just what I needed to complement my others. If you don't have a boat load of money to spend on glass this is a must have for DX or FX. Focus is quick and sharp.

Feb 26, 2008
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add wb4h to your Buddy List  
Ripolini
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Nov 5, 2005
Location: Italy
Posts: 381
Review Date: Nov 9, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: Cheap, lightweight, excellent image quality on both film and DX cameras from f/5.6 onwards. Good behavior in counterlight shots (negligible flare, very few ghosts).
Cons:
Color rendition slightly lower than the AF 20-35/2.8 I owned before I swapped it for this wider zoom. Distorsion at the wide end (fixable by post-processing). Built construction is not as good as pro lenses, however this is the price to be paid for compactness and low weight.

I have used extensively this lens on film bodies. Now I use it on my D200 and it performs even better. CA is very well corrected (bettrer than my AF-S 105/2.8 VR), vignetting on DX is negligible, corner sharpness on DX is very good even at wide apertures.
I performed a side by side comparison with the AF ED 12-24/4 DX at same focal lengths and on both film (F100) and digital (D100) cameras.
You can see the full test here:
http://xoomer.alice.it/ripolini/12-24%20vs%2018-35.htm

The 18-35 won the game!


Nov 9, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Ripolini to your Buddy List  
Peter Jones
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 28, 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
Review Date: Jan 28, 2007 Recommend? no | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 7 

 
Pros: convenience, clarity
Cons:
vignetting - unacceptable

received the lens yesterday after a 3 week wait - couldn't wait to play with it. Took a couple of quick snaps to ensure everything was working. Put them on the screen and almost fainted when I saw how bad the vignetting is especially at 200mm. Very noticeable against light background eg skies.

I've already complained to where I bought it and will provide them with a range of samples at various settings. I think this lens will be going back. Shame I held high hopes for it. I shoot a lot of loutdoors so this is a major disappointment for me and I don't feel like spending all my nights in Photoshop.

Maybe I just got a dud


Jan 28, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Peter Jones to your Buddy List  
phiggys
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Apr 7, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 25
Review Date: Dec 4, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $350.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: This has been a excellent lens to have in my bag. Pin sharp images that I have got with this lens convinced me to part with a number of fixed prime lenses that took up space in my bag. Pin sharp,lightweight,build quality.
Cons:
None yet.



Dec 4, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add phiggys to your Buddy List  
camerapapi
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Oct 15, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 4777
Review Date: Jun 28, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: sharp, light weight, IF, excellent for film cameras
Cons:
Mostly plastics but that makes it light. As to be expected barrel distortion at 18mm, easily fixed with software.

I picked this one used but in excellent shape. It offers that kind of perspective only obtainable with extreme wide angle lenses.
Images are very sharp at f8, through f16. Other stops usable too.
It is a slow lens great for sceneries but too slow for low light work. That does not bother me because I use it for landscape photography and when the light levels are low outdoors I simply go with my tripod.
In my opinion, an excellent lens for the money.


Jun 28, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add camerapapi to your Buddy List  
subgenius
Offline
Buy and Sell: On



Registered: Jan 17, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 186
Review Date: Jun 14, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $499.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Very sharp, excellent color and contrast. Have a Nikkor 24mm that can't stand up to the 18-35 at the same focal length.
Cons:
AF a little slow, hard to find anything wrong with this lens.

I've compared this lens to the 17-35mm on the D70 and was hard pressed to see the difference in the overall range. If you buy the 17-35, your giving away the extra $900-1000 that you could have saved buying this lens.

Jun 14, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add subgenius to your Buddy List  
mcordin73
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jan 31, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 92
Review Date: Feb 7, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $325.00 | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: Fun, snappy, useful lens - good to great image quality, nice price. This is an easy choice over the very expensive 2.8 17-35mm. I have a feeling that this lens would work for 99% of the time for almost any photographer.
Cons:
I too have noticed the Barrel Distortion at 18mm. You can't really complain about vari-aperatures - you know where to find the 2.8 constant.

If you don't have a bag of cash laying around then buy this lens!!! If money isn't a problem then go for the faster 2.8mm.

Feb 7, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add mcordin73 to your Buddy List  
tazo
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Oct 11, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 8252
Review Date: Dec 3, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $300.00 | Rating: 6 

 
Pros: Price, weight, size, relatively fast AF
Cons:
weight (a bit light at times), no constant aperture, not supersharp wide-open, noisy AF

Good lens but it is soft wide open, and is a slowish f/3.5. Noisy AF too. buy this if you cant afford the 17-35 2.8

daniel


Dec 3, 2004
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add tazo to your Buddy List  
Unregistered
Offline
Location: United States
Review Date: Jun 16, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $500.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Small and light, quite sharp - great for close-up's and landscapes, portraits.... realy quite handy
Cons:
Loud AF, can be a touch prone to flare

I've been looking for a wide angle lens for the DSLR, and I looked at a number of options. I was'nt overly keen on Sigma, my budget allowed for a second hand Nikon lens, so I went with the 18-35

I also looked at the 17-55/2.8 which would be brilliant to have, but way out of my price range. The D70 kit lens 18-70 looked quite capable too. I've only used it a couple weeks, but I've given it a fair test. In low light, close-up and landscapes it is trully great. Sharp, contrast, colour. I'm still getting the hang of portrait style images, but I expect it to also perform very well.

Overall, very happy to have this lens in the camera bag.


Jun 16, 2004
Edit/Delete Message
Nikonart
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Apr 12, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 19
Review Date: Apr 22, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $290.00 | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: It's not the $1500 17-35 f/2.8, but ED glass and a fairly quick IF AF is a good start. Add the very usable focal range of 18~35 and the 77mm filter size, and this lightweight marvel is hard to pass up on a D100 or D70. Images are very good at 35mm and good at 24mm.
Cons:
Barrel distortion at widest end [18mm] is quite noticeable.



Apr 22, 2004
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Nikonart to your Buddy List  
skyview
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jan 3, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 321
Review Date: Feb 9, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $450.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Absolutely amazed with the images from this lens. I too, use it with the D100 and have not seen any problems at the edges. I find myself trying to find a reason to use this lens, seems to work better than the 35-70mm f2.8 I also have.
Cons:



Feb 9, 2004
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add skyview to your Buddy List  
MoxieMike
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Nov 17, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 181
Review Date: Jan 18, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $449.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: It's light, the build quality is good, and of course, the image quality is excellent. Absolutely amazing on my D100..stellar contrasty & saturated images, and SHARP.
Cons:
Sometimes can be slow focusing, and it's not as "amazing" on my newly purchased "old" F3hp in the corners.

The ED glass, combined with the 18-35 focal range made this lens a must for me when I got my D100. Giving me a 28-52 zoom range allowed me to get a nice wide image, and when I started processing the images, I was blown away with the quality. There's some light fall off and softness in the extreme corners on my old F3, but it's perfect on the D100 and aside from some distortions, is every bit as good (on the D100) as the more expensive and heavy 17-35 f2.8.

Jan 18, 2004
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add MoxieMike to your Buddy List  
Andy Biggs
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Sep 16, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 1627
Review Date: Jun 2, 2003 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: lightweight, ED glass
Cons:
slow focusing, soft corners

Back in my Nikon days, I owned and used this lens for my back country camping trips. I loved the light weight, combined with an N80 body and Gitzo 1127 tripod. Not the best lens for photojournalism-type work, but for landscapes it was awesome.

Jun 2, 2003
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Andy Biggs to your Buddy List  

   



Nikon 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5D IF-ED AF

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
16 76768 Nov 28, 2010
Recommended By Average Price
94% of reviewers $382.44
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
7.40
8.30
8.7
1998NCP_180