I love my 17-35mm, especially after getting it fixed up but I seem to always be either at 17mm or 35mm so I'm thinking about going with the 18mm f/2.8 and 35mm f/2 and maybe picking up a 24-85 VR since people are giving them away for if I ever need a wide angle zoom.
The lens gets a bad rap I think. Maybe its not "that good" to all the experts but unless a lens is grossly out of whack IQ wise, I prefer to use it and either like or not like the results. I like the 18mm a lot. So do customers. Not one has said its not sharp enough. I take it with over the wide zooms (14-24mm) when weight matters and I know I'm shooting wide since its much lighter and can take a filter if needed.
I got mine used for a decent price and its a keeper.
I recently got the 18/2.8D. I did an A-B comparison with my 20/2.8D and I could not decide which was better, so call them even (I'm selling the 20 now). The 18 is a bit wider and more solidly built. The hood offers better coverage too.
The sharpness and CA may be a little worse than the zooms like the 16-35, 17-35, and 14-24, but it isn't like the 18 sucks. The pictures look good and sharp to me at reasonable viewing sizes. The distortion on the 18 is not bad at all. I think some of the criticism that the 18 and 20 get is based on test sites and pixel peepers. And I think the "Internet amplification" factor comes into play as well. Nikon only ever made about 7000 of the 18mm lenses, so a lot of people commenting on it have never held one in their hand. But, with day to day use of the 18mm lens, I find it quite pleasing and I will keep it permanently. BTW, I am shooting it with a D800.
I used it for a while and I liked it, it's lighter obviously so easier to carry but it was not as good as my 17-35mm simple as that, no bad mouthing on my part. I edit my work for editors who view at 100% so I peep.
niXer wrote:
My only reason against getting the 14-24 is I'd spend too much time worrying about scratching it then actually using it.
Some people make a fuss over the 14-24's potential for damage, but in my experience it's not a big deal. If you can keep any other lens scratch free, you can keep the 14-24 in the same condition. Don't let worry get in your way!
I have owned 2 or 3 copies of the 18/2.8D. My favorite lens of all time. I'd consider going back to Nikon just for that lens.
Compact, VERY well-built, great images, and you can occasionally find them for great prices. I never paid more than $300 for one.
On the D700 it was perfect.
I find the AFD 18/2.8 size and build really nice. Sharp in centre, but not great at corners. Prone to ugly red flare/ghosting. Since I don't often use ultra wide angles, it seems to be a good choice for me. I can put it in the bag and not really notice dragging it around with me. It really depends if you are going to enlarge to poster sizes or not. I rented a AFS14-24 and it had better IQ but still had weak corners at 14-15mm and still prone to ugly ghosting (a more nano green colour). Nothing is perfect out there. I would definitely like Nikon to consider a modern ultrawide prime. A 15 or 17mm/F2.8 would be nice...and keep it small and light!
ISO1600 wrote:
I have owned 2 or 3 copies of the 18/2.8D. My favorite lens of all time. I'd consider going back to Nikon just for that lens.......never paid more than $300 for one.
I'd love to find one for $300
Seems they all sell for around $800 now. Any issues I should lookout for if I do come across a cheap copy?
