New Nikkor 18–35mm f/3.5–4.5G ED FX lens

MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator
edited January 2013 in Nikon Lenses
With the introduction of smaller aperture wide zoom i am going to guess at something. There are two reasons to give us this lens. First, a very sharp lens at a price point making the entry into full frame less painful. Second, the technology of CAD lenses continues along with materials being improved may make this an outstanding lens. in terms of its overall characteristics.

Any thoughts?
Msmoto, mod
«13

Comments

  • DavidDavid Posts: 18Member
    As someone who is looking to make the jump into the Full Frame format - the first lens that I plan to purchase along with my body will be a wide zoom. I also normally shoot at smaller apertures at these focal lengths (generally from f/8 to f/16 so the aperture does not bother me whatsoever.

    However - the lens I was considering was the 16-35 f/4, and I am thinking those extra 2mm will make a huge difference for me, and likely worth the extra money. I am an ultra-wide addict, and often use filters for my landscapes. Depending on the price for this lens - it may be in consideration. 18mm has a DX equivalent of, what - 12mm? For me - I think this may not suffice for me.

    Though, any price conscious options in the Nikkor lineup will be welcomed with open arms from me.
  • JJ_SOJJ_SO Posts: 1,158Member
    Looking at my 24-85 FX cheapo, I just raise my eyebrow. I don't need another exercise for lens profilers 8-|
  • shawninoshawnino Posts: 453Member
    I'm surprised by this. With the 24-85 being the effective kit lens for D600, and the 28 1.8G being the latest fast prime released at a reasonable price point, why would Nikon's subsequent offering targeting D600 users overlap both of those in coverage? I don't get it.
  • EmceeEmcee Posts: 48Member
    I'm excited about this lens, I hope it's corner performance is above average. If it is I can see myself with this ultra wide in the future.
    I'm surprised by this. With the 24-85 being the effective kit lens for D600, and the 28 1.8G being the latest fast prime released at a reasonable price point, why would Nikon's subsequent offering targeting D600 users overlap both of those in coverage? I don't get it.
    It's the ultra wide portion that is the draw.

    If this lens performs as well as the new 24-85 I think it will be a quality buy if it is sold for less 800. If it cost 1000 people will buy the 16-35 f/4.
    D800 | 14-24 2.8G, 28 1.8G, 50 1.8G, 58 1.4G, 85 1.4D, 24-85G VR
  • shawninoshawnino Posts: 453Member
    Agreed the ultrawide portion is the alleged attraction Emcee. Thing is, if somebody already has the 24-85 in the bag, with or without the 28, I think this has to go for a LOT less than $800. $400-$500 tops in my mind or a person could just buy the 20 2.8D (roughly $500) and roll very nicely with that and the 24-85 kit lens.

    I'm biased: I own the 20 2.8D and think it's great. Assuming I have coverage from 24-up, I don't think I'd trade the 20 for an 18-35 straight up, but that's just me.

    I think the right play here for Nikon's second zoom aimed at the D600 crowd was either xx-24 at roughly f/4 or 100-x00 at fixed f/5.6. Doesn't mean I'm correct.
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    Looks like Nikon is finely putting all of those patents to work that they have registered years ago for updates to lenses that never came out. Now that FX is back for consumers, they seem to be finely updating the old film lenses. Good to see!
    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • EmceeEmcee Posts: 48Member
    Agreed the ultrawide portion is the alleged attraction Emcee. Thing is, if somebody already has the 24-85 in the bag, with or without the 28, I think this has to go for a LOT less than $800. $400-$500 tops in my mind or a person could just buy the 20 2.8D (roughly $500) and roll very nicely with that and the 24-85 kit lens.
    Shawnino, I bring up the high price because if you look at current prices for lenses this one is going to be costly. The DX 10-24 f/3.5-4.5 is at 900, if that's any indicator I'm guessing more than 900 minimum only because this lens is FX and require a little more glass.

    Regardless of the price it will be a nice addition to any bag, now if only we could get Nikon to update that 20 f/2.8 or any ultra wide prime.
    D800 | 14-24 2.8G, 28 1.8G, 50 1.8G, 58 1.4G, 85 1.4D, 24-85G VR
  • Scuderia1Scuderia1 Posts: 82Member
    Something I haven't seen mentioned so far is the new lens will accept 77mm filters. And that alone told me this lens won't be too cheap. We will have to wait and see its corner performances to see if landscapers will jump at this.

    The 77mm filter thread was a good idea, IMO
    Nikon D800 | Nikkor 50mm f/1.8g | Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 | Nikkor 300mm f/4 (+Nikon TC1.4x)
  • NSXTypeRNSXTypeR Posts: 2,209Member
    Looks like Nikon is finely putting all of those patents to work that they have registered years ago for updates to lenses that never came out. Now that FX is back for consumers, they seem to be finely updating the old film lenses. Good to see!
    Unfortunately for us DX users, wide primes are still nonexistent. Nikon camera bodies are great, but there is a severe dearth of attention toward DX primes.
    Nikon D7000/ Nikon D40/ Nikon FM2/ 18-135 AF-S/ 35mm 1.8 AF-S/ 105mm Macro AF-S/ 50mm 1.2 AI-S
  • JJ_SOJJ_SO Posts: 1,158Member
    And I think, that won't change. Other manufacturers doing only DX or smaller, do have nice primes, Pentax, Olympus, even Sigma. But why should Nikon start to make wide angle primes for DX? They'd never come into such detailed shots as one can do with FX - and with D600, one is not far away from the price of a decent DX body. Also, the high class wide-angle primes would have to be more expensive, if they don't change the bayonet - but technically they could not outresolve FX. Most people would go for FX instead paying more or at least as much as for a very good FX prime. The DX target group are not the landscapers, IMO.
  • shawninoshawnino Posts: 453Member
    The longer this goes, the more I think Nikon is moving to a model of
    CX/DX = entry-level consumer
    FX = the rest

    Not saying I approve, just muttering about what I see.
  • NSXTypeRNSXTypeR Posts: 2,209Member
    And I think, that won't change. Other manufacturers doing only DX or smaller, do have nice primes, Pentax, Olympus, even Sigma. But why should Nikon start to make wide angle primes for DX? They'd never come into such detailed shots as one can do with FX - and with D600, one is not far away from the price of a decent DX body. Also, the high class wide-angle primes would have to be more expensive, if they don't change the bayonet - but technically they could not outresolve FX. Most people would go for FX instead paying more or at least as much as for a very good FX prime. The DX target group are not the landscapers, IMO.
    I think the exclusive Pentax small primes are full frame capable- Pentax is similar to Nikon in that they haven't changed their mount.

    Olympus is 4/3 or m4/3 and hasn't supported their DSLRs with a new lens in a long time.

    Sigma has a mixed reputation- my cousin has a 28 or 20mm 1.8 prime that he bought a couple years ago for the Canon mount- it doesn't focus all that quickly and isn't all that sharp. He barely uses it.

    If Sigma can make a new 20 or 28mm lens with the same quality as that new 35mm, I'd be interested.

    Wide DX lenses may become more expensive, but I'd still be interested if Nikon made it.
    The longer this goes, the more I think Nikon is moving to a model of
    CX/DX = entry-level consumer
    FX = the rest

    Not saying I approve, just muttering about what I see.
    If Nikon truly were moving in that direction, CX would have started off with a PASM mode dial. I think the newer ones have them now after everyone complained. But they're still not built to the same quality as DX/FX cameras.

    Nikon D7000/ Nikon D40/ Nikon FM2/ 18-135 AF-S/ 35mm 1.8 AF-S/ 105mm Macro AF-S/ 50mm 1.2 AI-S
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,372Member
    edited January 2013
    Wow, this thread is really going off topic. :(

    I look forward to seeing what the new 18-35mm lens can do, since it could be my next lens.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • donaldejosedonaldejose Posts: 3,387Member
    I think Nikon is just updating some of the old film era AF lenses such as the 18-35 AF-D which is now a 13 years old design. No doubt the new one will prove to be better when it is tested. Not all FX lenses need to be "pro" 2.8 glass costing around two grand. For people generally shooting at f5.6 and f8 these smaller and lighter lenses will work just fine, especially with the lighter and less expensive D600.
  • shawninoshawnino Posts: 453Member
    PB_PM: what attracts you to this glass in theory? Light weight? Given the kit in your signature, why not get the 20 2.8D or the 16-35 f/4?

    I guess I'm totally missing why people who have 24-xx would be after this lens.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,372Member
    edited January 2013
    I don't shoot that wide very often, so spending over $1000 in a wide angle lens isn't justifiable (thus no 16-35mm). That said, there are times when I want to shoot wider than 24mm, simply due to space issues, sometimes you cannot step back anymore, without walking off a cliff. ;) As for the 20mm F2.8D, I have thought about it, but the price, considering it's age, is a little steep. Reviews I read state performance is identical at 20mm to the 20-35mm F2.8D I used to have, and to be honest it was a little weak on the 20mm end.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • GodlessGodless Posts: 113Member
    edited January 2013
    Any thoughts?
    "not another cheap, plastic zoom", "where is the 20mm g lens?", "where is the 300mm f/4G VR lens?", "where is the D400?", "has Nikon lost the ball?"

    Those thoughts popped into my mind.
    Looks like Nikon is finely putting all of those patents to work that they have registered years ago for updates to lenses that never came out.
    All the more reason to wait for a 135mm f/1.8G or something equally lust-provoking.


    Post edited by Godless on
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator
    @ Godless

    If Nikon comes through with a 135mm f/1.8G......with VR....yup, very lust provoking...

    The 135mm f/2.0 is already an incredible lens!
    Msmoto, mod
  • I'm sorry but what have I missed? Nikon are bringing out the same lens without an aperture ring and with AF-S and this is an innovation? I'd call it evolution....
  • Something I haven't seen mentioned so far is the new lens will accept 77mm filters.
    The existing one does too...

  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    edited January 2013
    I'm sorry but what have I missed? Nikon are bringing out the same lens without an aperture ring and with AF-S and this is an innovation? I'd call it evolution....
    No its a different lens

    the old lens had
    11 elements in 8 group
    1 element in ED
    one compound aspherical lens

    The new lens has
    12 elements in 8 groups.
    2 elements are ED
    3 ASPH elements
    Post edited by sevencrossing on
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    edited January 2013
    The longer this goes, the more I think Nikon is moving to a model of
    CX/DX = entry-level consumer
    FX = the rest

    Not saying I approve, just muttering about what I see
    .
    I think the top of DX range will be the D5200
    from then it goes D600; D800 D4

    but we may see some high end CX cameras and lenses in the future, sensor technology improves

    Post edited by sevencrossing on

  • No its a different lens

    the old lens had
    11 elements in 8 group
    1 element in ED
    one compound aspherical lens

    The new lens has
    12 elements in 8 groups.
    2 elements are ED
    3 ASPH elements
    Like I said evolution, not innovation...
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,396Moderator
    edited January 2013
    As I understand the process, Nikon may have multiple patents for very similar lenses. They no doubt build a few and test them, then decide which will go to production.

    We are in an era where almost all the various focal length zoom combinations have been produced in some form or another. So the goal of a lens designer is to come up with either a product which outperforms the previous one and/or is less expensive. As the design programs, materials, glass, coatings, etc., become more and more sophisticated, we will see continuous improvements on the various lenses. It could be the 85mm f/1.8G is a good example of this as it apparently outperforms its f/1.4 older sister.
    Post edited by Msmoto on
    Msmoto, mod
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,372Member

    No its a different lens

    the old lens had
    11 elements in 8 group
    1 element in ED
    one compound aspherical lens

    The new lens has
    12 elements in 8 groups.
    2 elements are ED
    3 ASPH elements
    Like I said evolution, not innovation...
    90% of the lenses Nikon has released in the last 10 years are evolutionary, not innovative. There is nothing innovative in modern lenses, aside from some coatings and computer designed elements. The optical design of the new lens is different, plain and simple.
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
Sign In or Register to comment.