|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
3
|
13360
|
5/23/2013
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Purchase
|
|
100% of reviewers
|
$738.33
|
|
| Reader Review Rating Averages |
Readers' rating for
Construction Quality
|
Readers' rating for
Image Quality
|
Readers'
Overall Rating
|
|
8.00
|
9.00
|
8.67
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leiduowen
Registered: July 2010
Posts: 2
|
|
Nikon 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S Nikkor review by Leiduowen
|
|
Review Date: 5/23/2013
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: $715.00| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
lighweight, cheap, solid optical quality
|
|
Cons:
|
variable aperture, no aperture setting (G-lens)
|
|
I'm an enthusiast photographer. I've used this lens on a F80s body and run it through several rolls of film (mostly Fuji X-tra 400 and Kodak Ektar 100) so far. It is all plastic yet feels quite reassuring in my hands. The results are comparable to the AF-S Nikkor 12-24/4 DX (a much more solid lens) that I used on my D300s before and much sharper in corners than the Tokina 20-35/3.5-4.5 (also a much more solid lens) I have used. (I would be able to do a pixel-for-pixel comparison except that I don't shoot a digital SLR any more.) Of course, this is not the behemoth Nikkor 14-24/2.8 nor does it pretends to be. Also, the results will vary with different camera bodies, esp. the digital. In terms of overall sharpness, I have no complaints, esp. when I shoot the lens stopped down a little to f/5.6 or f/8. Knowing the shortcoming of your lens you can get around them to produce stunning photos. By the way, this sentence from Andy's review on SLRGear.com raised me from the chair: "For a few dollars more, you can buy the 16-35mm lens." Are you nuts or what? These two lenses are more than US$500 apart! Moreover, the 16-35mm is a beast almost twice as heavy. Obviously, this 18-35mm was intended as a travel lens, which perfectly fits the bill for me, esp. on a lightweight body like the F80s (the 2nd lightest full-frame Nikon body, and among the cheapest, by the way). I am quite happy with this purchase, and would recommend it to a friend!
|
|
tomasm
Registered: May 2013
Posts: 1
|
|
Nikon 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S Nikkor review by tomasm
|
|
Review Date: 5/17/2013
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: $750.00| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, contrast, size, weight, look, price
|
|
Cons:
|
not weather sealed, distortion at 18mm, not as wide as some alternatives...but for that price all cons are pretty acceptable
|
|
I was previously using Tamron 17-35 attached to my D700. After about a year of Tamron experience and comparing nowadays to this lens...its a nonsense to compare it.
The vignetting is well controlled, the sharpness and contrast are outstanding. Thinking of an image stabilization, its nice addition but not that needed for the lens that wide and especially when you are used to capture landscapes using tripod. AF operation is faultless and accurate.
When comparing to Nikon 16-35 owned by my friend, its hard to find any difference in IQ, but it is lighter, smaller and needless to say it is fairly cheaper.
|
|
breivog
Registered: April 2013
Posts: 1
|
|
Nikon 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S Nikkor review by breivog
|
|
Review Date: 4/13/2013
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Total Spent: $750.00| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Light, sharp. good autofocus, smooth zoom and focus rings.
|
|
Cons:
|
no VR, Variable f-stop, not weather sealed, significant distortion at 18mm, not a wide as some alternatives.
|
|
I have compared this lens to the 17-35 2.8 and the 16-35 f4 VR myself on a D800. IMHO, this new lens is better than either (at the same focal lengths) - and much cheaper and lighter. At f8, all of these are fairly similar, but at f4, the 18-35 has considerable sharper corners than the 16-35, and a bit sharper than the 17-35.
Used it as a primary lens on a trip to Death valley. Results were very good. Quite a bit better than the 24-85G at 24mm.
This lens is weakest at 35mm, but still pretty good.
For hiking, it is and ideal wide angle when weight and size area consideration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
