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

Golf007sd · January 2013

Personally, I find fixed aperture lenses, is the best way to go; specially for those that are getting into the FX line of camera bodies. Moreover, given the outstanding performance and features of the 16-35 F4 VR, I really don't see the reason for producing a variable aperture lens like the 18–35mm f/3.5–4.5G FX.

With respect to what has truly been a innovation by Nikon (over the past 5 years), only one lens comes to mind: Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G ED AF-S.

PB_PM · January 2013

You might not see it Golf, but not everyone has $1000+ to spend on individual lenses. I'd bet that a good number of D600 users would be very happy with light weight, compact combo like this...

D600 body, 18-35mm, 24-85 VR and the 70-300mm VR.

We may not be those people Golf, but I suspect (as does Nikon apparently) that we are in the minority.

Golf007sd · January 2013

@PB_PM Your point is valid. If the price of this unit falls within or less than the one's you mentioned.

[Deleted User] · January 2013

With respect to what has truly been a innovation by Nikon (over the past 5 years), only one lens comes to mind: Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8G ED AF-S.

What makes you think that this lens is particularly innovative? This is a simple question.

Golf007sd · January 2013

@darkslide There has been so much written about this lens that the few words that I can share with you does not do this lens justice. Moreover, it would deviate from the topic at hand. Perhaps it is best to start a different topic where we can share our thoughts about the 14-24 2.8.

[Deleted User] · January 2013

Yes, better to start a new topic.

JJ_SO · January 2013

I agree with the 14-24 and find a 24/1.4 also pretty remarkable. I just can't find a fixed aperture necessarily better than variable. It just goes hand in hand, that the build- and optical qualities of the fixed apertures are better.

shawnino · January 2013

Agreed that 16-35 f/4 is not the budget choice.

We'll see the final pricepoint when we see it, but the 16-28 2.8 Tokina ($800) will be ridiculously hard to beat if this Nikon lens is more than $600.

I guess that's what makes a market. If I'm sitting on a D600 and the 24-85 kit, I can always find a reason not to buy this lens...
--If I want to spend $500, I get the 20 2.8
--If I want to spend $800, I get the Tokina
--If I want to spend $1200, likely the 16-35 f/4 (or the Tokina and come in under budget for once?)
--If money is no object, I probably get the 14-24

Now, if I'm a DX user dabbling in FX, I doubt that this lens will be that much better than my 18-55 kit. Not bagging on the kit lens at all. I think it's fine. This new lens will have some ED/ASPH glass and be weather sealed, but only have half the reach at 4X or more the price. I know this isn't geared toward DX, I get that, but many FX lenses have DX appeal. This isn't one.

Might be a great lens, I just can't figure out who'll buy it. (Of course I can't figure out who buys the 300 2.8 either, just buy the 200/2 and crop or slap a 1.4 TC on it, but I guess plenty of 300 2.8s are sold, so what do I know.)

PB_PM · January 2013

There are plenty of reasons to go for the 18-35mm over the 20mm F2.8... namely it shoots wider, it's more flexible, and has AF-S. 2mm wider might not sound like a lot, but in practice it can be, just think of the issues people face with interior architecture, where space can be an issue. Also If the 18-35mm has less distortion at the wide end than the 16-35 does at 18mm, then it might be worth looking at as well. I don't really see a fixed aperture being a big advantage for a wide angle lens, in some applications. If you are shooting at F8-11 the difference between the 18-35mm (current) and the 16-35mm is minimal at best.

As for why people would get a native 300mm F2.8 over the 200mm F2... size and weight for one thing. Not to mention you start to loose resolution the second you put a TC on a lens. But if you really want to stretch it, with the TC20E III the 300mm becomes a 600mm, while the 200mm would only become 400mm.

jerl · January 2013

I'm curious to see how well this one will perform. I'm pretty good on wide zooms, so it's extremely doubtful that I'd ever buy it, but if it doesn't cost too much, it definitely fits in well with the lineup.

Godless · January 2013

As for why people would get a native 300mm F2.8 over the 200mm F2... size and weight for one thing.

30 grams makes a huge difference? I give up.

Msmoto · January 2013

If we want to discuss the advantages/disadvantages of the 300mm f/2.8 vs the 200mm f/2...maybe it needs a new thread.

Golf007sd · January 2013

Well it is official: 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED AF-S NIKKOR....$750 (US).

TaoTeJared · January 2013

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.

I am still absolutely confused on comments like this. Zero offence intended but I just can't figure out what people want on the wide end that is not already there by any company. Primes? Nikon hasn't updated any of their wide angle primes so there is no difference between the two and between 3rd party lenses and Nikon every lens is out there.

So what is the desire?

PB_PM · January 2013

Not a bad price, and it looks like Nikon has improved the build quality a bit too, which is a good thing. It is on my list for sure.

[Deleted User] · January 2013

... and it looks like Nikon has improved the build quality a bit too, which is a good thing...

And you deduced this from the price? Wow - I have to say I'm impressed....

PB_PM · January 2013

I didn't say the price had anything to do with the build quality, although they are often related. I made the assumption based on the fact that it has the updated body style, like the newer G type primes.

KnockKnock · January 2013

Really allows you to build a decent, reasonably-priced system. Pickup a 50mm prime and the 70-300VR. Nikon has been very generous to FX lately.

Irony or modern optical engineering: it's easier and cheaper (USD $750/385g) for FX shooters to go wide with this than it is to get the 10-24mm ($899/460g) or 12-24mm ($1225/465g) DX versions.

[Deleted User] · January 2013

Personally the focal length doesn't particularly interest me as I use the 16-35mm but what surprises me somewhat is the lack of VR. Yes, I realise that this would add size, weight and price, but as an evolutionary step I would think it reasonable.

This said, I think the IF part is the most interesting - this is often underestimated, but in my view is a huge benefit - particularly as it can sometimes limit the repairs necessary when/if the lens is dropped $:\$ ">

As to build quality - I can't see this actually improving - the old one was built like a tank, the new one is made from a lot of plastic...we'll have to wait to actually touch one to see.

PB_PM · January 2013

Umm, what??? The 18-35mm F3.5-4.5D (IF) was plastic fantastic too. You must be thinking of the AF-S 17-35mm F2.8D IF.

Photozone review of the old version

Msmoto · January 2013

Now, the wait for those who go for this and post the images which are very sharp and without as much distortion ask the 16-35mm f/4 VR. With a price of about USD $500 less, this could be a real deal.

As to construction of the new lenses, I have several old heavy all metal ones from the 1960's and it would be my opinion the material may not be very important. Only a decreased weight for the new ones. And, it may be the ultimate reliability of the new materials is extremely long. I have not heard of a lens made of the non-metallic materials failing due to the materials.

[Deleted User] · January 2013

I have not heard of a lens made of the non-metallic materials failing due to the materials.

Tell that to the people regarding the tripod mount for the new 70-200mm f/4....

JJ_SO · January 2013

Was just about to mention that

But, to my comfort, the tripod dealer just told me, that these lens collars are the weak point, no matter of the lens' material.

If it comes to materials, of course: it DOES matter if it's metal or high tech plastics. But metal is these days used for the core and plastic for outside. That reduces weight, causes less oxidation problems (salt water, salty air, humidity in general and the sweat in our hands which can be aggressive to metal) has a lot advantages for the making of the lens and is isolating electrically and thermically. That should be kept in mind when complaining about plastics.

Edit: as for the lens: like I said, a cheapo with good resolution, less good distortion (and always the sentence "can be corrected in post", which is kind of short thinking) and the main concern was clearly the price.

ageha · January 2013

"CAD lenses"? lol
Anyway, I'm really looking forward to this and hope it will be as sharp as the newer 28/1.8 and 70-200/4.

JJ_SO · January 2013

18/1.8? Did I miss something?

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Who's Online (0)

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

Comments