18th July 2004, 12:32 AM
20-35 f2.8 vs 18-70 f3.5-4.5
earlier i bought the 20-35, then found its not wide enough, so bought the 18-70. from then i found the 18-70 much more versatile, and never had a chance to use the 20-35.
the qn now is, have any of you guys found a wide 2.8 useful? i never had a chance to use 2.8 for a wide...can't find a reason why i'd need 2.8 for blurred background (if evn that can be used as wides are bad in blurring backgrounds).
the only use i can see is a low light situation, perhaps outdoor nightscapes or something.
anyone else can give me situations why i may want to use a 20-35 f2.8 rather than the 18-70 f3.5? thanks!
26th July 2004, 12:55 AM
26th July 2004, 08:42 AM
Yup, even if it's a 20/1.8 and you use it wide open, it'd have more DOF than the 18-70 @ 50/4. WA...most of the time forget about playing with DOF lor. (i mean the real serious DOF play).
One good reason about fast lenses is that since most glasses perform better when stopped down optically, the 2.8 has an advantage. I have the tamron 28-75/2.8 which probably has not much of a visible difference when performing wide open when vs the 18-70 in wide open. I mean, i don't go anal-retentive about the small differences, i guess the 28-75 should still be sharper and the CA performance is definitely much better. (18-70 wide open has quite a bit of CA wide open wide-end). There is no fight when you compare the 75mm end of the tamron at f4.5 vs the 70mm of the Nikkor at f4.5.
The 20-35 is somewhat the predecessor of the 17-35/2.8 right? Can't be that bad. Bjorn Rorslett of naturfotograph rated it to be better than the 18-70 i think.
26th July 2004, 08:44 AM
You've got to find ways to use your own lenses, others can't really help. And no, you buy a lens to fit your requirements, not finding shooting patterns to suit your lenses.
26th July 2004, 09:18 AM
I'm not finding a shooting pattern to suit my lenses, i'm just asking if anyone has a similar situation and has found a need for one over the other. As I have no "CURRENT" use right now for the 20-35, i'm contemplating selling it. However, before doing that, i want to be sure that I wont need it in future (buying it back again is a dumb move) so i'm asking for other people's experiences to see if I may ever find myself in those situations.
Originally Posted by Kit
26th July 2004, 09:26 AM
Frankly, I've never shot at f/2.8 wide ever since I got mine. Hee. I've always shot at about f/4 - f/8. Oh yeah, shot once, under very very low light. Still haven't processed that roll of slides though (3 weeks liao )
The fixed aperture is what I'm looking at, stepping down from a f/2.8 constant aperture allows me to not worry when I change my zoom. Also, the image quality from the predecessor of the legendary AF-S 17-35 f/2.8D IF-ED len is nothing to doubt about.
A WA normally resolves more details than telezooms, so at f/4, the image produced can still be quite sharp throughout the zoom range.
I can't say the same for a WA med-zoom with variable apertures. Frankly, I'd go for image quality over zoom range. I'm sure even if i have to switch the 20-35 to a wider len, I would go for the 17-35
The 18-70 is no doubt more versatile, but frankly, the image quality will suffer slightly from the variable aperture (sorry, kinda been converted into fixed aperture lenses now by a few NC members ).
If you want quality and versatility, the 17-55 f/2.8 is a good choice
Also the 20-35/2.8 can be used for events and lowlight shooting as well, which the f/2.8 would come in useful
26th July 2004, 10:00 AM
Okay. This is news to me. Care to elaborate please?
Originally Posted by espn
26th July 2004, 10:59 AM
Hi vince123123, haven't seen you around for a while...
Originally Posted by vince123123
Ok, the only reason I would use a wide and fast lens is during low light situations. The 2 lens you have is very close to each other in terms of aperture and range. Think you may wanna look at other factors too such as image quality, distortions and sharpness.
26th July 2004, 11:22 AM
Thanks all for the response, yup the 20-35 is probably better when needing high quality and for 'slower reaction' kind of shots. the 18-70 seems to be able to be better for versatility, and I kinda like the AFS whcih the 20-35 does not have.
Anyway anymore comments feel free to add!