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

Started Feb 3, 2013 | Discussions
jhinkey
jhinkey Senior Member • Posts: 2,802
Re: I'm not

Rich Rosen wrote:

jhinkey wrote:

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

You are right, it does have IF. My bad.

We all make mistakes (particularly me)!

We'll have to see if this updated WA zoom can make me sell my 17-35AFS.  It will be particularly interesting when (if) Nikon comes out with it's patented 16-35/2.8AFS VR.

John

 jhinkey's gear list:jhinkey's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS3 Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Nikon D800 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 +21 more
marike6 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,088
Re: A lack of excitement about the 18-35 3.5-4.5?
4

travelinbri_74 wrote:

This lens really excites me. I don't know if Nikon would feel they are sabotaging their own sales, but if this lens is sharper than the 16-35, this could be an extremely desirable lens. Small for travel, doesn't need to be too fast, I will be watching this one closely...

-TBri

There's a lack of excitement for the excellent new 70-200 f/4G ED VR, even after Photozone have it the coveted "Highly Recommended" in it review of it a couple of days ago.

High prices are one thing, but if Nikon users, who have been begging for a 70-200 f4 like the Canon version for years, aren't getting pumped up about this new telephoto zoom, they probably aren't going to be buzzing too much about a variable aperture UWA zoom.

I'm extremely excited about the new 18-35, as my only wide at present is the not-so-wide, but excellent 28 1.8G.  And it this lens performs well, I will most certainly buy it, unless I get a windfall and get the 16-35 f4 VR or 14-24 2.8 instead.  But since that's not too likely, I'm happy Nikon decided to make something for everybody.

 marike6's gear list:marike6's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P330 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Nikon D800 Fujifilm X-E1 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +7 more
sd40 Senior Member • Posts: 1,553
Re: A lack of excitement about the 18-35 3.5-4.5?

Bajerunner wrote:

if the reports are to believed, the D600 itself has compromises in build quality re components and QC re design testing, else there would not be so many reports of excessive sensor oil/dust etc.

Clearly Nikon is marketing the D600 and these lenses as affordable, that does not mean they are top quality, it means value for money. Which they are.

As to whether one buys such is a choice. Personally I think though if one is going for a current Nikon FF other than D4, for the difference of 800 dollars, the 800 is a better value, for what you are getting.

Can we say that the D600 is aimed at 'consumer enthusiast' and the D800 at 'pro enthusiast'and pros, due to differences in build etc? If we are comparing D600 as enthusiast and D800 as Pro, then the difference in build quality is easily worth 800 dollars.


Your class consciousness would fit right into 18th century England.  Slicing and dicing the class structure, no one out of his place.

 sd40's gear list:sd40's gear list
Nikon D750 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Nikon AF Fisheye-Nikkor 16mm f/2.8D Nikon AF Nikkor 105mm f/2D DC Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G +8 more
GoldRingNikkor Senior Member • Posts: 1,841
Re: A lack of excitement about the 18-35 3.5-4.5?

Son Of Waldo wrote:

Good to see you (still) around here BTW, GRNikkor. It's been awhile.

Ya. Having a look every once in a while.

Rich Rosen Senior Member • Posts: 2,356
Re: I'm not

jhinkey wrote:

We'll have to see if this updated WA zoom can make me sell my 17-35AFS.

And that is why I am not excited. Why would I give up a really good UWA zoom, with fixed aperture for a unit with variable aperture. If any thing you should have sold your 17-35 for the 16-35 f4.

It will be particularly interesting when (if) Nikon comes out with it's patented 16-35/2.8AFS VR.

Still not enough for me to give up an old friend. The 14-24 had me thinking for awhile. But when I held it at Photo Plus in NYC a couple of years ago, I knew that a honker like that would be used on an extremely limited basis. Certainly not a travel lens; even less so than the 17-35.

 Rich Rosen's gear list:Rich Rosen's gear list
Nikon D810 Nikon D1X Nikon D610 Nikon D500 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR +23 more
jhinkey
jhinkey Senior Member • Posts: 2,802
Re: I'm not

Rich Rosen wrote:

jhinkey wrote:

We'll have to see if this updated WA zoom can make me sell my 17-35AFS.

And that is why I am not excited. Why would I give up a really good UWA zoom, with fixed aperture for a unit with variable aperture. If any thing you should have sold your 17-35 for the 16-35 f4.

Why would I trade it out for the 16-35/4?  For nearly equivalent performance at a higher cost?  Don't need VR for what I do with the 17-35 so the 16-35 is higher cost, lower weight, but longer.  Not the best trade for me.

It will be particularly interesting when (if) Nikon comes out with it's patented 16-35/2.8AFS VR.

Still not enough for me to give up an old friend. The 14-24 had me thinking for awhile. But when I held it at Photo Plus in NYC a couple of years ago, I knew that a honker like that would be used on an extremely limited basis. Certainly not a travel lens; even less so than the 17-35.

Not sure why the 14-24 came up in the conversation.

So if the 16-35/2.8AFS VR trounces the 17-35 you still might not give it up?  I might not either if the cost in $$, weight, and size is too great.

 jhinkey's gear list:jhinkey's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS3 Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Nikon D800 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 +21 more
pocketuniverse New Member • Posts: 21
Re: A lack of excitement about the 18-35 3.5-4.5?

travelinbri_74 wrote:

This lens really excites me. I don't know if Nikon would feel they are sabotaging their own sales, but if this lens is sharper than the 16-35, this could be an extremely desirable lens. Small for travel, doesn't need to be too fast, I will be watching this one closely...

-TBri

Is the lens a rejigg of the 'sleeper' AF-D, 3.5-4.5-28-70 ?
That was/is a decent zoom and with 9 blade iris.
Does the 18-35 have 9 blades?

Rich Rosen Senior Member • Posts: 2,356
Re: I'm not

jhinkey wrote:

Rich Rosen wrote:

jhinkey wrote:

We'll have to see if this updated WA zoom can make me sell my 17-35AFS.

And that is why I am not excited. Why would I give up a really good UWA zoom, with fixed aperture for a unit with variable aperture. If any thing you should have sold your 17-35 for the 16-35 f4.

Why would I trade it out for the 16-35/4? For nearly equivalent performance at a higher cost? Don't need VR for what I do with the 17-35 so the 16-35 is higher cost, lower weight, but longer. Not the best trade for me

But you would be thinking about trading out the 17-35 for this lens? Not sure I understand your logic on that, unless its a weight issue, or I didn't get the joke.

 Rich Rosen's gear list:Rich Rosen's gear list
Nikon D810 Nikon D1X Nikon D610 Nikon D500 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR +23 more
jhinkey
jhinkey Senior Member • Posts: 2,802
Re: I'm not

Rich Rosen wrote:

jhinkey wrote:

Rich Rosen wrote:

jhinkey wrote:

We'll have to see if this updated WA zoom can make me sell my 17-35AFS.

And that is why I am not excited. Why would I give up a really good UWA zoom, with fixed aperture for a unit with variable aperture. If any thing you should have sold your 17-35 for the 16-35 f4.

Why would I trade it out for the 16-35/4? For nearly equivalent performance at a higher cost? Don't need VR for what I do with the 17-35 so the 16-35 is higher cost, lower weight, but longer. Not the best trade for me

But you would be thinking about trading out the 17-35 for this lens? Not sure I understand your logic on that, unless its a weight issue, or I didn't get the joke.

No joke - it would be the weight/compactness:

18-35 (new):  83 x 95 mm/3.3 x 3.7 in. 385 g /13.6 oz

17-35/2.8AFS: 82.5 x 106 mm/3.2 x 4.2 in. 745 g/26.3 oz.

For what I do with my gear I'll take shorter and 1/2 the weight . . . but the IQ needs to be there.

Like I said - I rarely use f/2.8 on my 17-35 and I'd take the size reduction and 1/2 the weight for less than a stop at the wide end and more than a stop at the long end in reduced max. aperture.  The old 18-35 was perfect, except that it's IQ was not event close to acceptable . .

 jhinkey's gear list:jhinkey's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS3 Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7 Nikon D800 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 +21 more
inasir1971
inasir1971 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,611
Re: A lack of excitement about the 18-35 3.5-4.5?
1

philm5d wrote:

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.

The logic here goes something like this:

*I've sold prints => my prints are good => the lens I used is good => you think the lens is not good but i know better => * (repeat from beginning)

How do you make the step from 'my prints are good' to 'the lens is good'?

Good photographs don't necessarily need 'good' lenses just as 'good' lenses don't necessarily produce good photographs. One is a description of a tool, the other is a description of what you do with the tool - the two are not in any way necessarily correlated.

Why does it matter what anyone else thinks of a lens? It's not a comment about your work?

"let me go put my nose up to the corners - gosh there's a little bit of softness there". I see I should step backwards till everything looks perfect - the deficiency lies with the way I'm observing, not with the lens? In that case, guess all these people buying anything other than super-zooms need to have their heads checked.

 inasir1971's gear list:inasir1971's gear list
Sony RX1R II Nikon D4 Nikon D850
marike6 Veteran Member • Posts: 5,088
Re: A lack of excitement about the 18-35 3.5-4.5?
1

pocketuniverse wrote:

travelinbri_74 wrote:

This lens really excites me. I don't know if Nikon would feel they are sabotaging their own sales, but if this lens is sharper than the 16-35, this could be an extremely desirable lens. Small for travel, doesn't need to be too fast, I will be watching this one closely...

-TBri

Is the lens a rejigg of the 'sleeper' AF-D, 3.5-4.5-28-70 ?
That was/is a decent zoom and with 9 blade iris.
Does the 18-35 have 9 blades?

From the specs.

http://www.nikon.com/news/2013/0129_lens_05.htm

  • A 7-blade rounded aperture for beautiful blur characteristics. 

This is fine.  The 28, 50 and 85 1.8G lenses all have 7-blade diaphragms and all have beautiful bokeh.  I think companies have gotten better at making more circular apertures with less blades and the 18-35 should do fine for pleasing bokeh (as fine as a wides and ultra-wides tend to do, hopefully).  We'll see.

Anyway, it's a really nice looking lens that I definitely wouldn't mind owning.

 marike6's gear list:marike6's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P330 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Nikon D800 Fujifilm X-E1 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +7 more
MoreorLess Veteran Member • Posts: 4,388
The range and the price?

travelinbri_74 wrote:

This lens really excites me. I don't know if Nikon would feel they are sabotaging their own sales, but if this lens is sharper than the 16-35, this could be an extremely desirable lens. Small for travel, doesn't need to be too fast, I will be watching this one closely...

-TBri

It seemed to me that the 24-85mm VR really caught peoples attension because it was so much cheaper than the 24-120mm f/4 VR($700ish) and cutout the end of the range that performed worst.

The 18-35mm isnt such a big saving($500ish) and rather than losing the 16-35mm's weaker 30-35mm range it loses the 16-18mm range that dispite the distortion and extreme corners is still a strong performer and indeed the range many would buy an UWA zoom for in the first place.

Alberto 1290
Alberto 1290 Forum Member • Posts: 78
The range , the price and ... the quality !

By the way... the real problem with Nikon WA (zoom or primes)  is about distortion. The most (all ?) the Nikon lenses in that range suffers from that point of view and I really would like to see a change in this habit expeciallly thinking to architecture photography. I've always thought it's better to do every correction during the shot and I really don't like to loose part of the photo during software correction.

regards

Alberto

 Alberto 1290's gear list:Alberto 1290's gear list
Canon EOS-1D X Nikon Df Sony RX1 Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro Nikon D70 +39 more
thomas2279f
thomas2279f Senior Member • Posts: 2,782
Re: A lack of excitement about the 18-35 3.5-4.5?

There are other lens that need updating Asap the 80-400 & 300 F4 AFs - at the time there is an alternative lens to 18-35 the 16-35 F4 VR but no Nikon alternatives to the 2 lenses mentioned...

 thomas2279f's gear list:thomas2279f's gear list
Nikon D800 Apple iPad WiFi +1 more
Guidenet
Guidenet Forum Pro • Posts: 15,748
Re: The range , the price and ... the quality !

Alberto 1290 wrote:

By the way... the real problem with Nikon WA (zoom or primes) is about distortion. The most (all ?) the Nikon lenses in that range suffers from that point of view and I really would like to see a change in this habit expeciallly thinking to architecture photography. I've always thought it's better to do every correction during the shot and I really don't like to loose part of the photo during software correction.

regards

Alberto

Hey Alberto, not counting Architectural use, I love the 16mm wide side of the 16-35 f/4 and don't mind the distortion in the least. In fact, I've added to it on occasion for effect. Often barrel distortion and keystoning can really play to a great composition. I even like the curving horizon in ocean or plains landscapes and can't see it in mountain or city scapes, much of the time.

I'm not sure why Nikon has designed some of their latest glass without more attention of distortion though. As much as I kind of love the barrel distortion, I realize it is a negative and wonder why they allowed so much to exist. I think Nikon relies too much in their auto-correction in the Jpeg engine or Capture NX so they can design for other attributes. I don't know. When I do correct for it, I have to plan up front to leave enough room to crop out the corrected corners. It's not too hard moving fromĀ 3x2 to 5x4 aspect ratio though. Just have to remember.

-- hide signature --

Cheers, Craig
Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile

 Guidenet's gear list:Guidenet's gear list
Canon PowerShot G1 X Nikon D300 Nikon D700 Nikon D3S Nikon D800 +31 more
Tom Ames Senior Member • Posts: 1,167
Re: A lack of excitement about the 18-35 3.5-4.5?

I'll buy it if optics are good. It's half the weight of the 16-35, that's what I like about it.

Will probably use it mostly at the wide end and here it is faster than the 16-35

 Tom Ames's gear list:Tom Ames's gear list
Fujifilm X100F Nikon D810 Tamron SP 35mm F1.8 Di VC USD Nikon AF-S 105mm F1.4E ED Phase One Capture One Pro +7 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads