A lack of excitement about the 18-35 3.5-4.5?

philm5d · Feb 3, 2013

Am I the only one who actually likes the present version of this lens? I guess I ought to accept that I am in the minority onn these forums in that,

a) I actually own and use the equipment I talk about and

b) I am a full time pro of 30 years experience who actually sells images and doesn't pixel peep lenses to the nth degree.

Enough of the rant. I can sum up the present af-d lens. It is an extremely light weight lens with excellent performance for the price and. The centre is sharp at ALL apertures and focal lengths Yes if you stare into the far corners there is a lack of the central area performance, less so at the edges but far from unacceptable.

The image below is from a D800 at F5.6/18mm with the point of focus being the red car number plate. I can easily read the dealer's name on the plate - for crying out loud how much more do you want?

If the extra element in the latest version makes any improvement then I'll be buying one, on the other hand maybe I'm happy with this one that cost me £200 on eBay. By the way this lens knocks the socks off the 20mm f2.8. I had two copies of the 20, both were really soft at the edges and horrible colour fringing.

I also own the (weighs a ton) 14-24 but when I can live without the 14 end guess which lens I reach for!

sfnikon · Feb 3, 2013

Depends on it's optics. If it's superb I'm definitely interested. It'll be a good travel lens combined with the 85/1.8G.

jhinkey · Feb 3, 2013

philm5d said:
philm5d wrote:

Am I the only one who actually likes the present version of this lens? I guess I ought to accept that I am in the minority onn these forums in that,

a) I actually own and use the equipment I talk about and

b) I am a full time pro of 30 years experience who actually sells images and doesn't pixel peep lenses to the nth degree.

Enough of the rant. I can sum up the present af-d lens. It is an extremely light weight lens with excellent performance for the price and. The centre is sharp at ALL apertures and focal lengths Yes if you stare into the far corners there is a lack of the central area performance, less so at the edges but far from unacceptable.

The image below is from a D800 at F5.6/18mm with the point of focus being the red car number plate. I can easily read the dealer's name on the plate - for crying out loud how much more do you want?

If the extra element in the latest version makes any improvement then I'll be buying one, on the other hand maybe I'm happy with this one that cost me £200 on eBay. By the way this lens knocks the socks off the 20mm f2.8. I had two copies of the 20, both were really soft at the edges and horrible colour fringing.

I also own the (weighs a ton) 14-24 but when I can live without the 14 end guess which lens I reach for!

Check that upper right hand corner for sharpness and CA . . . .

And while you are at it check the left and right edges.

The car license plate is not far enough into the corners or edges to see the issues that bother some of us who use those parts of the frame . . .

--

http://www.seanet.com/~hinkey/Signature6.jpg

jhinkey · Feb 3, 2013

philm5d said:
philm5d wrote:

Am I the only one who actually likes the present version of this lens? I guess I ought to accept that I am in the minority onn these forums in that,

a) I actually own and use the equipment I talk about and

Good.

philm5d said:
b) I am a full time pro of 30 years experience who actually sells images and doesn't pixel peep lenses to the nth degree.

Good that you are a pro, but that does not necessarily make you any more credible than an experienced, proficient, talented serious amateur.

philm5d said:
Enough of the rant. I can sum up the present af-d lens. It is an extremely light weight lens with excellent performance for the price and. The centre is sharp at ALL apertures and focal lengths Yes if you stare into the far corners there is a lack of the central area performance, less so at the edges but far from unacceptable.

The image below is from a D800 at F5.6/18mm with the point of focus being the red car number plate. I can easily read the dealer's name on the plate - for crying out loud how much more do you want?

Well, I want a lens that when stopped down is sharp all the way out the corners - not a blurry CA mess.

If your subject of interest is mainly in the center of the frame, then great, the old version will do you fine. But if you have interesting thing in the edges and corners (say like a mountain range with stars in the sky) you kind of want those parts of the image to be sharp.

philm5d said:
If the extra element in the latest version makes any improvement then I'll be buying one, on the other hand maybe I'm happy with this one that cost me £200 on eBay. By the way this lens knocks the socks off the 20mm f2.8. I had two copies of the 20, both were really soft at the edges and horrible colour fringing.

It's not just an extra element, it's extra aspherics and extra ED elements (and different optical design all together) that will (hopefully) make a big difference.

philm5d said:
I also own the (weighs a ton) 14-24 but when I can live without the 14 end guess which lens I reach for!

I own the very nice 17-35/2.8 which also weighs quite a bit and I'm looking for something that is reasonably sharp wide open (which the current 18-35 is not) and uniformly sharp across the frame stopped down a bit. Hopefully the new version will have these attributes.

paulski66 · Feb 3, 2013

coudet said:
coudet wrote:

coudet said:

paulski66 wrote:
Interesting; I've never seen it referred to as "one of the worst lenses Nikon has ever made."

Click to expand...

Look at Photozone test for the old 18-35mm.

coudet said:

Thom Hogan generally seemed very favorably disposed toward this lens, ans did Bjorn.

Click to expand...

You gotta give those tests some perspective. They were done many, many years ago back when people were shooting film and standards and expectations were much lower than today. Both Hogan and Rørslett say it's not really good, but it's cheap and it'd do ok on a Nikon D1.

"Under-performs on FX" and "one of the worst lenses Nikon has ever made" are two completely different things.

I agree that it ha not impressed many on FX, but when it was first released, it seemed to be greeted as a capable (not stellar, not awful, but capable) alternative to the 17-35. At least from what I've read.

I've seen a number of reviews of the lens on FX that indicate it is definitely lacking, but that's precisely why I'm intrigued by this update; I hope they address the most egregious issues, and bring us back into the capable/pretty good realm. If so, I may be interested.

superbaguy · Feb 3, 2013

The samples on Nikon's site don't load at full resolution for me. Where did you see the samples at 100%?

Member said:
inasir1971 wrote:

I've pulled up the samples (and they're at D600 resolutions) and looked at them at a 100% - it really isn't good. Not at 18, not at 35 not in the corners, not even in the center. Granted, there aren't any samples that are stopped down to say f/8, but I would certainly expect the center at least to be better. (It seems particularly weak at distance)

Till there is something to suggest that it is any good (and these samples suggest otherwise) there is little reason to get excited about this. Being 'new' or revised alone doesn't make it any good.

RKBouknight · Feb 3, 2013

Guidenet said:
Guidenet wrote:

I wish I could talk you into that new 28 f/1.8 AFS.

Thanks for the note, I have been looking at the 28/1.8G! Too many good choices out there! The 18-35 probably adds more flexibility to my bag with the 28/2 in there if needed. But, the 28/2 doesn't really get going strong until about 2.8, so the 28/1.8 would add a little more effective WA lens speed and IQ. Will probably get both someday

Also to consider is that the 16-35 is not that much more $'s than the new 18-35. Darn, the marketing types make the choices difficult. Hope the image quality between the zooms is comparable, I would take the $'s and physical size savings over the VR (I think).

inasir1971 · Feb 3, 2013

superbaguy said:
superbaguy wrote:

The samples on Nikon's site don't load at full resolution for me. Where did you see the samples at 100%?

superbaguy said:

inasir1971 wrote:

I've pulled up the samples (and they're at D600 resolutions) and looked at them at a 100% - it really isn't good. Not at 18, not at 35 not in the corners, not even in the center. Granted, there aren't any samples that are stopped down to say f/8, but I would certainly expect the center at least to be better. (It seems particularly weak at distance)

Till there is something to suggest that it is any good (and these samples suggest otherwise) there is little reason to get excited about this. Being 'new' or revised alone doesn't make it any good.

Click to expand...

Posted by Coudet in this thread. The link is:

http://www.dcfever.com/lens/readreview.php?id=7758

jhinkey · Feb 3, 2013

Member said:
inasir1971 wrote:

Member said:

superbaguy wrote:

The samples on Nikon's site don't load at full resolution for me. Where did you see the samples at 100%?

Member said:

inasir1971 wrote:

I've pulled up the samples (and they're at D600 resolutions) and looked at them at a 100% - it really isn't good. Not at 18, not at 35 not in the corners, not even in the center. Granted, there aren't any samples that are stopped down to say f/8, but I would certainly expect the center at least to be better. (It seems particularly weak at distance)

Till there is something to suggest that it is any good (and these samples suggest otherwise) there is little reason to get excited about this. Being 'new' or revised alone doesn't make it any good.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Posted by Coudet in this thread. The link is:

http://www.dcfever.com/lens/readreview.php?id=7758

Those samples looked pretty decent to me considering most of them are near wide open according to the website. Some have a bit of sharpening applied others it looks like none.

In the one shot at sunset it appears to have very little flare/ghosting (though I'm sure you can get it to ghost if you worked at it just like most lenses).

There's always sample variation too.

We'll just have to see. Thinking about getting this one, but it will be hard to part with my 17-35AFS . . . .

jhinkey · Feb 3, 2013

RKBouknight said:
RKBouknight wrote:

RKBouknight said:

Guidenet wrote:

I wish I could talk you into that new 28 f/1.8 AFS.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the note, I have been looking at the 28/1.8G! Too many good choices out there! The 18-35 probably adds more flexibility to my bag with the 28/2 in there if needed. But, the 28/2 doesn't really get going strong until about 2.8, so the 28/1.8 would add a little more effective WA lens speed and IQ. Will probably get both someday

Also to consider is that the 16-35 is not that much more $'s than the new 18-35. Darn, the marketing types make the choices difficult. Hope the image quality between the zooms is comparable, I would take the $'s and physical size savings over the VR (I think).

Well, it is ~$500 more - that's nothing to sneeze at for sure.

Son Of Waldo · Feb 3, 2013

buy one quickly and sell it for a profit while others wait ~~years~~ months for theirs. Unless of course, Nikon has a couple of freighters full and ready to go.

16-35 flare example

I just took this a few minutes ago with a focus distance of 12-15 feet right into the winter sun on a clear day. Point, click and resize for web. The (standard) picture control sharpening was set at 3.The 16-35 is a very, very good lens on a D700, IMO. I like to use it in the 20-30mm range as I have a 35mm (Zeiss 35/2) that I really like as well.

I would encourage anyone interested in the 16-35 to read Andy Westlake's review, right here on DPReview. It's as good as any I've found on this particular lens.

inasir1971 · Feb 3, 2013

The examples posted of the old version above are truly awful. Simply saying that they're good doesn't make them good. Similarly implying that 'pixel peep...to the nth degree' is pretty much the same as saying that 'if you think it's bad, you're looking too closely'.

Finding a lens that is worse than it doesn't make it any good.

An 18-35/3.5-4.5 FX lens that is passable on DX is one which is passable if you ignore 55% of the frame. That is a range which is covered by every single DX kit zoom at similar apertures, most fairly good (not passable only) and many with VR, and all with AF-S motors to make them compatible with all recent bodies.

The previous version is rubbish on FX and completely pointless on DX.

If the samples from the new one qualify as good (and they're only at 24MP resolution), then let me ask this, apart from it's predecessor and some obsolete film era primes is there anything worse?

xtm · Feb 3, 2013

$750 causes lack of excitement

Rajeshb · Feb 4, 2013

I am very excited, just don't have the habit of expressing it in DPR.

I don't know what makes a photographer enthusiast or serious. I always believed it's the work they produce and a good photographer will produce similar end product with 16-35 or 18-35. at the end, right light, right exposure and right processing affect the end result much more than a tiny bit of extra sharpness.

I don't think DPR forums are really a representation of larger photographic community and I am pretty sure nikon will sell a lot of 18-35 lenses.

I am personally excited as I believe I am a serious photographer, but just not rich as the other members here. D600+24-85+18-35 provides me an opportunity to buy a good landscape set up in a budget. I am looking forward to buy it may be next year when the prices come down a bit more.

Rajesh

philm5d · Feb 4, 2013

Member said:
inasir1971 wrote:

The examples posted of the old version above are truly awful. Simply saying that they're good doesn't make them good. Similarly implying that 'pixel peep...to the nth degree' is pretty much the same as saying that 'if you think it's bad, you're looking too closely'.

Finding a lens that is worse than it doesn't make it any good.

An 18-35/3.5-4.5 FX lens that is passable on DX is one which is passable if you ignore 55% of the frame. That is a range which is covered by every single DX kit zoom at similar apertures, most fairly good (not passable only) and many with VR, and all with AF-S motors to make them compatible with all recent bodies.

The previous version is rubbish on FX and completely pointless on DX.

If the samples from the new one qualify as good (and they're only at 24MP resolution), then let me ask this, apart from it's predecessor and some obsolete film era primes is there anything worse?

I'm sure you're right old boy, what would I know about anything just because I have sold dozens of images from this rubbish lens and have a 60 inch canvas on the wall. Wait let me go put my nose up to the corners - gosh there's a little bit of softness there, must rip it down and trash it.

Amateur photographers - don't you just love 'em.

Rajeshb · Feb 4, 2013

philm5d said:
philm5d wrote:

philm5d said:

inasir1971 wrote:

The examples posted of the old version above are truly awful. Simply saying that they're good doesn't make them good. Similarly implying that 'pixel peep...to the nth degree' is pretty much the same as saying that 'if you think it's bad, you're looking too closely'.

Finding a lens that is worse than it doesn't make it any good.

An 18-35/3.5-4.5 FX lens that is passable on DX is one which is passable if you ignore 55% of the frame. That is a range which is covered by every single DX kit zoom at similar apertures, most fairly good (not passable only) and many with VR, and all with AF-S motors to make them compatible with all recent bodies.

The previous version is rubbish on FX and completely pointless on DX.

If the samples from the new one qualify as good (and they're only at 24MP resolution), then let me ask this, apart from it's predecessor and some obsolete film era primes is there anything worse?

Click to expand...

I'm sure you're right old boy, what would I know about anything just because I have sold dozens of images from this rubbish lens and have a 60 inch canvas on the wall. Wait let me go put my nose up to the corners - gosh there's a little bit of softness there, must rip it down and trash it.

Amateur photographers - don't you just love 'em.

ahaaaa...one of those self-proclaimed, self-obsessed "pros" of dpreview

Alberto 1290 · Feb 4, 2013

paulski66 said:
paulski66 wrote:

paulski66 said:

inasir1971 wrote:

It is an update of what some have referred to as one of the worst lenses that Nikon has ever made, it's doing something which three other lenses already do (all faster or with VR), and I don't recall a single post with anyone wishing for this. No one has any idea how good (or bad) this is.

Why would anyone be excited?

Click to expand...

Interesting; I've never seen it referred to as "one of the worst lenses Nikon has ever made."

Thom Hogan generally seemed very favorably disposed toward this lens, ans did Bjorn. It seems to suffer significantly on FX...but so do a number of older Nikkors (I traded in my 35mm f/2d because I found the FX performance so underwhelming, despite loving that lens on DX).

I think, done right, this could be a very appealing lens. I'm somewhat excited...

I agree. The Italian Photo Magazine "Tutti Fotografi" tested the old 18-35mm discovering it was better under every profile of the "professional" 17-35 f2.8

Obviously it was easy to be more correct due to the limited aperture, but it was so, and , in my experience, the lens was really satifactory.

regards

Alberto

Rich Rosen · Feb 4, 2013

There are at least 11 Nikon Zoom lenses that start with a wide angle in the 14-18mm range (yawn). This includes the DX lenses. VR? In that FOV range, not important. Varible aperture? That's exciting...not! This is just a redo of the non AF-S model they currently have in their catalogue. Excited about an up grade that gives you unnecessary VR, and AF-S, that should have been in the first model; and yet takes away internal focusing? No. I 'll stay with my trusty 17-35 2.8, that is 12 years old thank you.

jhinkey · Feb 4, 2013

Rich Rosen said:
Rich Rosen wrote:

There are at least 11 Nikon Zoom lenses that start with a wide angle in the 14-18mm range (yawn). This includes the DX lenses. VR? In that FOV range, not important. Varible aperture? That's exciting...not! This is just a redo of the non AF-S model they currently have in their catalogue. Excited about an up grade that gives you unnecessary VR, and AF-S, that should have been in the first model; and yet takes away internal focusing? No. I 'll stay with my trusty 17-35 2.8, that is 12 years old thank you.

Since when does the upgraded 18-35 model have VR and does not have IF? What on earth are you talking about?

Rich Rosen · Feb 4, 2013

jhinkey said:
jhinkey wrote:

jhinkey said:

Since when does the upgraded 18-35 model have VR and does not have IF? What on earth are you talking about?

Click to expand...

A lack of excitement about the 18-35 3.5-4.5?

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Member

inasir1971

Guest

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

inasir1971

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Active member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts