New Nikkor FX 18-35 f/3.5-4.5G lens

gabbott66

I'm surprised no one has posted anything about this new lens yet. Here's the link at Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-18-35mm-3-5-4-5G-NIKKOR-Digital/dp/B00B7O31TA/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

If it's like the new 24-85, it's an optically excellent but lightweight plastic lens made in China, not Japan. $750. I own the 24-85, and find it to be quite excellent/sharp on my D800E - but I already have a Tokina 19-35 to cover that range.

Ken Rockwell really likes it, although he characteristically complains about it being manufactured in China. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-35mm-g.htm

Thoughts?

PB_PM

Someone here would have to have bought one to say anything.

TaoTeJared

Considering you can get the Tokina 17-35MM F4 FX AF for Nikon for $600 vs. the $750 I'm not sure it is worth it. I got my Tokina AT-X 16-28mm f/2.8 for just under $800 with tax at a local store. I see it is going for $750 on Amazon now.

shawnino

That Tokina 16-28 is a superb lens. I'm covered so I'm not complaining, but I had the chance to test it briefly in Antarctica and it was ridiculously good. If I was starting over I'd leave the 14-24 in the shop and save a lot of money. (OK, I wouldn't save it, I'd just blow it on another lens, but...)

PB_PM

Considering you can get the Tokina 17-35MM F4 FX AF for Nikon for $600 vs. the $750 I'm not sure it is worth it. I got my Tokina AT-X 16-28mm f/2.8 for just under $800 with tax at a local store. I see it is going for $750 on Amazon now.

Must be nice to be in the States. The 17-35mm is $699, and the 16-28mm is $799. That is until the rebate on them expires at the end of March and the price goes up $100. Not sure I would buy either, although I have been tempted. Tokina lenses are well known (as are those lenses) for nasty CA (my 12-24 F4 sure was). The 17-35 also uses 82mm filters, which are crazy expensive, more than making up for the price difference.

The 18-35mm makes sense if a) you already have 77mm filters, b) want a lighter, smaller lens, c) don't want third party glass, d) Don't want to deal with tons of nasty greeny/yellow CA in post, that Tokina's are renowned for. Oh and E) Better resale value, due to being a first party lens.

TaoTeJared

Tokina lenses are well known (as are those lenses) for nasty CA (my 12-24 F4 sure was).

...E) Better resale value, due to being a first party lens.

I guess I have never noticed any issues with CAs any more than Nikon's offerings - and I am a stickler on CAs. Wide open they have a bit, but stopped down 1-2 stops and they are almost non-existent in my eye. Older Tokina lenses sure did though. I have also found Tokina resale sits really steady - Used drops about 10-15% and just holds there. Nikon on the other hand drops at least 20-25% from new. (That's in the states though.)

One thing to remember about the US prices, no tax is ever included. Usually add about 10% and that will be the "high side" of any cost but usually much lower depending on the area you live in. (i.e. my area is 6.5%)

That Tokina 16-28 is a superb lens. I'm covered so I'm not complaining, but I had the chance to test it briefly in Antarctica and it was ridiculously good. If I was starting over I'd leave the 14-24 in the shop and save a lot of money. (OK, I wouldn't save it, I'd just blow it on another lens, but...)

That is what I have done - although the extra $1000 is going to lighting gear. The Nikkor is sharper wide open at 2.8 (splitting hairs but visually at 50% you can tell) - stopped down to F/4+ it is wicked sharp.

PB_PM

One thing to remember about the US prices, no tax is ever included. Usually add about 10% and that will be the "high side" of any cost but usually much lower depending on the area you live in. (i.e. my area is 6.5%)

No tax included in my prices either. 6.5%, not bad, its 13% here!

I bought my Tokina 12-24 new, and it cost $700ish + tax. It sold used, when I moved to full frame, for just about $400 (I've seen them go for $350 even). That's about 40% of the value lost. Not a good resale value in my books. On the other hand, most Nikkors I sold fetched within 10-15% of the new price. Canada is simply a different market, third party gear really gets hit here.

TaoTeJared

You sure $700??? New they go for $450 - I think when they were first released they were $575ish. Never anywhere near $700 for sure - at least here.

No tax included in my prices either. 6.5%, not bad, its 13% here!

They make up for it in wheel tax/auto - Mine is around $600/year, and property - you don't even want to know that $#.

PB_PM

You sure $700??? New they go for $450 - I think when they were first released they were $575ish. Never anywhere near $700 for sure - at least here.

No tax included in my prices either. 6.5%, not bad, its 13% here!

They make up for it in wheel tax/auto - Mine is around $600/year, and property - you don't even want to know that $#.

As I said, Canada is a different market. The gen II 12-24mm F4 (with built in motor) is currently listed at $649, and that's with a $50 rebate.

Don't even start on auto insurance rates, base rate is $1000, and that doesn't even cover optional stuff. Vancouver has the highest property tax rate in Canada, and is currently ranked the most expensive city to live in, in North America for that matter. So, yeah I know your pain.

birdman

According to KR, it's as sharp as the 16-35VR and 14-24. LOL. That's a little hard to believe but not impossible. It is not about it's lightweight, variable aperture, or value price. I just find it hard to believe Nikon would risk sales of the higher end WA lineup to make an upgraded 18-35 (which the original is said to be pretty good) as sharp as it's flagships. The distortion looks every bit as horrible at 18mm as the 16-35 @ its widest FL, which renders it less useful until about 20mm (which distortion corrections in PS will slightly degrade quality on BOTH of the Nikkors.)

I'd stick with a fixed aperture Nikon or 3rd party UWA before the 18-35