Putting the 18-35/3.5-4.5G in context

[WildlifeBio]

So far, many early comments regarding Nikon's new 18-35/3.5-4.5G are effusive. Based on some comments, you'd think this is the finest wide-angle lens Nikon has ever produced.

Certainly this new lens is lightweight, inexpensive, no VR, etc. etc... those differences are clear from the product specs. But where does it fall on the current spectrum of lens options regarding edge/corner sharpness, flare resistance, and distortion? I'm very interested in hearing from those with experience with both this lens and others in this approximate range (16-35/4, 28/1.8, 24/1.4, 14-24/2.8, etc.).

How good is this lens really?

 

[Josh152]

The context of the 18-35 3.5-4.5G is actually quite simple. It joins the new 24-85mm VR and the 70-300mm VR to complete Nikon's trinity of affordable, variable aperture, "G" type, FX zooms for the D600 and any other cheaper FX cameras in the future. It's optical preformance is probably very similar to that of the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G VR.

 

[Rich Dykmans]

Josh152 wrote:

The context of the 18-35 3.5-4.5G is actually quite simple. It joins the new 24-85mm VR and the 70-300mm VR to complete Nikon's trinity of affordable, variable aperture, "G" type, FX zooms for the D600 and any other cheaper FX cameras in the future. It's optical preformance is probably very similar to that of the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G VR.

Based on the initial images I've seen from the new 18-35 I'd say it's a cut above the 24-85 / 70-300 VR (which are very good)

 

[Josh152]

Rich Dykmans wrote:

Josh152 wrote:

The context of the 18-35 3.5-4.5G is actually quite simple. It joins the new 24-85mm VR and the 70-300mm VR to complete Nikon's trinity of affordable, variable aperture, "G" type, FX zooms for the D600 and any other cheaper FX cameras in the future. It's optical preformance is probably very similar to that of the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G VR.

Based on the initial images I've seen from the new 18-35 I'd say it's a cut above the 24-85 / 70-300 VR (which are very good)

Then it will be an excellent lens, especially for the price.

 

[jfk]

Rich Dykmans wrote:

Josh152 wrote:

The context of the 18-35 3.5-4.5G is actually quite simple. It joins the new 24-85mm VR and the 70-300mm VR to complete Nikon's trinity of affordable, variable aperture, "G" type, FX zooms for the D600 and any other cheaper FX cameras in the future. It's optical preformance is probably very similar to that of the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G VR.

Based on the initial images I've seen from the new 18-35 I'd say it's a cut above the 24-85 / 70-300 VR (which are very good)

+1

Will have to wait for the lens test sites to give us the specifics.

http://www.moosepeterson.com/blog/2013/03/14/18-35afs-omg/

jfk

 

[WildlifeBio]

I agree; we won't know too much until some of the 'comprehensive' review sites start posting their results.

I ask, because I'm getting ready to pull the trigger on the 28/1.8G while the rebate program remains available. I'm skeptical that the 18-35 really outperforms it @ 28mm, but thought I'd ask.

 

[gatorowl]

WildlifeBio wrote:

I agree; we won't know too much until some of the 'comprehensive' review sites start posting their results.

I ask, because I'm getting ready to pull the trigger on the 28/1.8G while the rebate program remains available. I'm skeptical that the 18-35 really outperforms it @ 28mm, but thought I'd ask.

In some respects you're comparing apples and oranges. At 28mm the 18-35mm is a 4.5 lens; the 28mm is a 1.8, so there's a 1 2/3 stop difference in speed. So, if you enjoy isolating your subject at this focal length, then you need to get the 28mm prime.

In terms of sharpness, it's a whole lot closer. I have the new zoom and it is extremely sharp in the center at 28mm. So, I suspect that these two lenses will be fairly close in the center (from 4.5), the 28mm will be sharper on the FX edges and the zoom will be sharper on DX edges. I hazard this guess because the 28mm prime has curvature issues that cause softness on DX edges, but it recovers nicely for FX edges. However, the 18-35mm zoom does very well on the edges, so I suspect that the differences will not be major.

We shall soon see are accurate my hypothesis is.

 

[Catalana]

Here is an Italian site with some real world images taken with the lens. Hard to say how much the images were post processed (crops, etc), but all in all, many of the images look good.


http://www.juzaphoto.com/recensione.php?l=en&page=obiettivo&t=nikon_18-35g

At the bottom of the page are selected images, but you can right click an image and open a gallery in a new tab. Make sure you look at the exif data, as not all images in a given gallery might have been taken with this lens. If this lens can come close to the 16-35mm/F4, it should be quite popular.

But it seems folks are hesitant, or better yet, cautious. Even the flickr group for this lens has no images to display. ;-)

 

[just Tony]

I can already tell from the sample shots that the new AF-S variant is better than its predecessor which I've shot extensively. The flatter focal plane at the corners is definitely an advancement.

This new 18-35 therefore moves closer to the 16-35. But it's too soon to make that comparison just yet.

 

[m_appeal]

18-35 test shots

full-resolution, EXIF available

 

[Catalana]

Thx for posting your shots. Can you add anything about the lens itself?

 

[inasir1971]

This and most other questions about lenses would be answered if Nikon would simply just publish full sized images from their lenses with a D800 instead of showing tiny little 700px thumbnails. What can one determine from just two computed MTF curves wide open on a wide angle zoom at either end? What about f/8? What about the middle?

It's crazy that we (the customers) have to go through the web on a scavenger hunt for images to see whether a lens fits our needs.

 

[m_appeal]

I posted some full-size test shots above taken with the D800; not sharened (there are a few at f11)

 

[WildlifeBio]

In addition to m_appeal's helpful link, mattr has posted a set of crops comparing the new 18-35 with the 24-85/3.5-4.5G and the 28/1.8G:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3453309

Pretty impressive results, particularly against the prime.

 

[paulski66]

inasir1971 wrote:

It's crazy that we (the customers) have to go through the web on a scavenger hunt for images to see whether a lens fits our needs.

Yes and no.

I imagine any camera store would let you mount their display copy for 15-30 minutes in order to take test shots. Then you're free to pixel-peep to your heart's content - straight out of the cemera, exactly the way you would be using it (stopped down; jpeg; raw; in-camera distortion correct; whatever suits you...).

 

[Catalana]

I want to revise my reference to the site in the above post. A lot of the shots taken with the AF-S 18-35mm G where done with DX cameras, so they would not really show the far corner performance. Mea Culpa...

 

[Josh152]

Catalana wrote:

I want to revise my reference to the site in the above post. A lot of the shots taken with the AF-S 18-35mm G where done with DX cameras, so they would not really show the far corner performance. Mea Culpa...

This is something you always have to watch for with user reviews of FX lenses. The Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 gets a lot of reviews saying its really sharp because it has great center sharpness and most people going on about how sharp it is are using it on DX. Once you put it on FX though you find out the edges and corners are soft. Which may or may not matter depending you what you photograph and your style but is something best to know before buying the lens.

 

[slimandy]

I'd be interested in a direct comparison to the 17~35mm f2.8. I love that lens but often wish it was smaller because it would be easier to use as a two-lens kit if it was. I think I could give up the fast aperture as long as I wasn't compromising IQ (much). I have a Sigma 35mm f1.4 if I need a fast lens.

I had the old 18~35 but it wasn't on a par with the 17~35 and I tended to use it on it's own on DX so was less bothered about the relative size. (I'm FX now). I tried the 16~35 but it is just as big (or bigger?) and I don't need VR in this range. The new 18~35 could be the lens I have been looking for.



--

www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk

 

[MoreorLess]

Rich Dykmans wrote:

Josh152 wrote:

The context of the 18-35 3.5-4.5G is actually quite simple. It joins the new 24-85mm VR and the 70-300mm VR to complete Nikon's trinity of affordable, variable aperture, "G" type, FX zooms for the D600 and any other cheaper FX cameras in the future. It's optical preformance is probably very similar to that of the 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G VR.

Based on the initial images I've seen from the new 18-35 I'd say it's a cut above the 24-85 / 70-300 VR (which are very good)

I'd say each of these lenses progressively emphasize performance over range/specs less plus they cost progressively less, espeically here in the UK where the 18-35mm is 75% of the price of the 16-35mm VR.

 

[J Craig H]

Very useful thread, thanks.

I'm wondering if anyone has any updates to this - either from using the 18-35 g more or from getting one recently? (Particularly on a D800/E.)

I'm thinking about ordering one tonight. So far it seems like an ideal wide zoom for hiking and travel but with good quality too.

Craig