-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
WANTED some opinions/samples w/18-35 nikon
- Thread starter bobarue
- Start date
ResIpsaLoquitur
Senior Member
It is a first class lens. At F11, it is amazingly sharp. Light too.
Jimmy Brunet
Leading Member
I struggled to make a choice between that lens and the Sigma 15-30. The only thing that swayed me away from the Sigma was the filter situation. In hindsight, it probably wouldn't make a difference now. My intention was to be able to use the lens on both my N90 and D100 and the Cokin filter system. As with most digital photogs the film camera tends to collect dust and filters can be duplicated in PS.
That being said, I really love this lens. 18mm is plenty wide enough for me and the colors are great.
This is a zoo shot I took with the lens and will upload some more when I get the chance.
http://www.pbase.com/image/15978555
I find it to be well made and lightweight enough to be able to use for long periods of time. The hood will block the pop-up flash which nobody really uses. And around f8 - 11 it is really sharp, wide open is soft, but salvageable.
Good luck on your decision.
--
Jimmy B
http://www.pbase.com/jimmybru/galleries
I see therefore I shoot
That being said, I really love this lens. 18mm is plenty wide enough for me and the colors are great.
This is a zoo shot I took with the lens and will upload some more when I get the chance.
http://www.pbase.com/image/15978555
I find it to be well made and lightweight enough to be able to use for long periods of time. The hood will block the pop-up flash which nobody really uses. And around f8 - 11 it is really sharp, wide open is soft, but salvageable.
Good luck on your decision.
--
Jimmy B
http://www.pbase.com/jimmybru/galleries
I see therefore I shoot
Shadco
Senior Member
I'm pleased with mine.
Model D100
Flash Used No
Focal Length 26 mm
Exposure Time 1/200 sec
Aperture f/8
ISO Equivalent
Exposure Bias -1
White Balance daylight (1)
Metering Mode multi spot (3)
JPEG Quality
Exposure Program shutter priority (4)
Focus Distance 2.62 m
Shad
-----------------------------------------------------
I knew where I was when I wrote this
I don't know where I am now...
...Kit in profile...
...pbase supporter...
...Nikonians supporter...
to tell you the truth, it's my first Nikkor Lens.
I'm very pleased with its results, especially its sharpness. I know some people say this lens is a little bit soft, but, in my case, it is not.
However, what I must point out is that when you attach it with the D100, it turns out to be a 27-52. The visual impact is not that strong.
here is some of mine posts.
http://digi.pchome.net/2003/6/22/2_66974.htm
http://digi.pchome.net/2003/6/21/2_66840.htm
I'm very pleased with its results, especially its sharpness. I know some people say this lens is a little bit soft, but, in my case, it is not.
However, what I must point out is that when you attach it with the D100, it turns out to be a 27-52. The visual impact is not that strong.
here is some of mine posts.
http://digi.pchome.net/2003/6/22/2_66974.htm
http://digi.pchome.net/2003/6/21/2_66840.htm
The winner is the Sigma in all aspects except maybe (big maybe) the quality of built.
The Nikon offers the possibility of easily using threaded filters, it is more troubles with the Sigma but the Sigma is tons sharper.
Yves P.
The Nikon offers the possibility of easily using threaded filters, it is more troubles with the Sigma but the Sigma is tons sharper.
--
Yves P.
ResIpsaLoquitur
Senior Member
Do you own them both? No way the Sigma (which I tested) is "tons sharper". I'm not knocking the Sigma, which is a reasonable performer.
RIL
RIL
Testing and using a lens is totally different IMO.
I have both yeah ... I started with the 18-35 but quickly moved to the 15-30 as I needed wider in the first place. I quickly noticed what a lot of people were saying, it is extremely sharp. I am not going to repeat the story I wrote a few times in this forum but let's say that my Pro friends are fooled when it comes to compare the images from my 15-30 vs their Nikon 17-35 2.8 AF-S (which is a reference b the way). I even had to show the exif to prove it was done with the Sigma and not the Niokn.
The Sigma 15-30 is one of Sigma's gem, the only place it doesn't do better tha the Nikon is on the biult quality and I must admit it is still seriously well built.
I have posted dozens of images here to prove my point, many others also agree.
Yves P.
I have both yeah ... I started with the 18-35 but quickly moved to the 15-30 as I needed wider in the first place. I quickly noticed what a lot of people were saying, it is extremely sharp. I am not going to repeat the story I wrote a few times in this forum but let's say that my Pro friends are fooled when it comes to compare the images from my 15-30 vs their Nikon 17-35 2.8 AF-S (which is a reference b the way). I even had to show the exif to prove it was done with the Sigma and not the Niokn.
The Sigma 15-30 is one of Sigma's gem, the only place it doesn't do better tha the Nikon is on the biult quality and I must admit it is still seriously well built.
I have posted dozens of images here to prove my point, many others also agree.
--
Yves P.
Nefilim
Forum Enthusiast
Fine lens. Used to be my most often used lens. It's definitely a bit soft wide open and the contrast doesn't really compare to the 17-35mm and 12-24mm. Good value for money I think.
Cheers,
--
Peter
Cheers,
--
Peter
Thanks for posting this picture. It is the sharpest example I've seen yet. Can you post the shooting data? Do you have anymore examples?
I agree, if $ wasn't a question, the 17-35 would be the way to go. I really am still undecided though. I tend to agree with Ron, because I am the same way, that buying something that will eventually disappoint me is a bad idea, as I end up spending more money getting the right one eventually anyway.
There is probably an excellent prime in this range, that will fullfill my needs most of the time but, I would like some flexibility as well.
I agree, if $ wasn't a question, the 17-35 would be the way to go. I really am still undecided though. I tend to agree with Ron, because I am the same way, that buying something that will eventually disappoint me is a bad idea, as I end up spending more money getting the right one eventually anyway.
There is probably an excellent prime in this range, that will fullfill my needs most of the time but, I would like some flexibility as well.
Fine lens. Used to be my most often used lens. It's definitely a
bit soft wide open and the contrast doesn't really compare to the
17-35mm and 12-24mm. Good value for money I think.
Cheers,
--
Peter
David Grabowski
Veteran Member
To back you up to an extent and add a little as well. I too owned the 18-35 and turned it back in . People said the Sigma flared, and the first thing I did with the 18-35 was to take an image with a huge flare in it !!! But I actually turned the lens back in to go for the wider view of the Sigma, to make the story shorter, bought the Sigma and was super surprised at the sharpness and I haven't flared a shot with it yet. Not to say it won't flare, it certainly will as most wide zooms will, but the Nikkor certainly was no better in this regard in my experience.
Now the 18-35 is a good lens, don't get me wrong on this, but in looking for a wider range of wide zoom, I think I did very well with the Sigma.
David
Mine don't flare either ...
This is exactly how I see the difference, no demeaning of the 18-35 at all
Yves P.
This is exactly how I see the difference, no demeaning of the 18-35 at all
--
Yves P.
Thanks for posting this picture. It is the sharpest example I've seen yet. Can you post the shooting data? Do you have anymore examples?
I agree, if $ wasn't a question, the 17-35 would be the way to go. I really am still undecided though. I tend to agree with Ron, because I am the same way," buying something that will eventually disappoint me is a bad idea, as I end up spending more money in the long run, getting the right one anyway."
There is probably an excellent prime in this range, that will fullfill my needs most of the time but, I would like some flexibility as well.
I agree, if $ wasn't a question, the 17-35 would be the way to go. I really am still undecided though. I tend to agree with Ron, because I am the same way," buying something that will eventually disappoint me is a bad idea, as I end up spending more money in the long run, getting the right one anyway."
There is probably an excellent prime in this range, that will fullfill my needs most of the time but, I would like some flexibility as well.
Fine lens. Used to be my most often used lens. It's definitely a
bit soft wide open and the contrast doesn't really compare to the
17-35mm and 12-24mm. Good value for money I think.
Cheers,
--
Peter
L
Leon Obers
Guest
Nikon D1x
Nikkor 18-35 mm / f 3.5-4.5
Exif:
18 mm / f 5.6
Exposure 1/500
ISO 125
Nikon Capture 10 Mp ouput --> 4016 x 2616 pixels
Total image:
100% crop left below corner
100% crop right below corner
100% crop under side
100% crop under side
100% crop outside centre
--
Leon Obers
Nefilim
Forum Enthusiast
I'm currently on holiday in Canada, the original RAW image is somewhere on my home computer. I'll post when I get back next week.
Cheers,
--
Peter
Cheers,
--
Peter
How is the weather up there? What I can usually tell from Yves's shots it looks like there is always good weather.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum