|
|
svx94
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Mar 25, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 591
|
|
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 
Cheers!
|
|
 Aug 16, 2008
|
|
veroman
Online
Image Upload: On
Registered: Aug 19, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1561
|
|
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
|
|
wb4h
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 18, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 19
|
|
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
|
|
Ripolini
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 5, 2005
Location: Italy
Posts: 115
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
phiggys
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 7, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 17
|
|
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
|
|
camerapapi
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 15, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 4132
|
|
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
|
|
subgenius
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 17, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 120
|
|
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
|
|
mcordin73
Offline
Image Upload: On
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
|
|
tazo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 11, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 8249
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
Nikonart
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 13, 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
|
|
|
