20-35 mm f2.8


Status
Not open for further replies.

bigfatfish

New Member
Jan 13, 2004
997
0
0
Was planning to get a WA lens lately.

Just wanted to hear from the forum how much would they spend on this glass assuming its in used but 9/10 condition.

Anyone here used this lens can give me some reviews too? Thanks in advance.

edit : THis 20-35 refers to the Nikkor f2.8 20-35 , forgot to add it in. Sorry.
 

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,899
0
0
Planet Nikon
The 2nd hand price ranges from 1K to 1.2K.
 

bigfatfish

New Member
Jan 13, 2004
997
0
0
wah ESPN up so early on sunday ah! anyway thanks for your reply.

any idea how the performance of the lens?
 

nightwolf75

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 18, 2003
17,918
27
48
really MORE diaper changes
from Bjorn Rorslett's site. he rated its a 4.5/5 lens. :)

"This is a commonly used lens for photojournalists and definitively geared towards their line of work. Solidly built, its AF action is very fast when it is mounted on an F5 or F100 body largely due to the IF construction. A non-rotating front is an added benefit. There is an aspherical front element which makes it a capable performer when the aperture ring is set in the f/4 to f/11 range, and the main object is put in the image centre. Sharpness is very good to excellent at all focal lengths in the central areas of the image, but the corners go soft below ~ 24 mm or so. This is partly due to field curvature although residual coma also plays a part here. Vignetting and corner fall-off are quite modest and the same applies to the level of barrel distortion. When pointed towards the sun, this zoom flares to some extent but behaves better than most others. Ghosting is in fact quite well controlled although an intensely bright orange-coloured spot can appear at some focal settings.

The main problem with this lens, and the reason I swapped it for the AFS 28-70, is simply that it shows the ill effects from IF, viz. colour fringing in the periphery and out-of-focus areas. In fact, it never imparts high sharpness when it is applied to landscape-type photography because there remains a tangible fuzziness within the DOF zone. So, although theory predicts a large DOF, it cannot be realised due to the chromatic errors (mostly lateral colour). It is a small consolation for Nikon users that the other brand lenses are even worse far as colour fringing is concerned."
 

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,899
0
0
Planet Nikon
This glass no ED elements tho'. I can't remember who was it that commented, Nikon created the 17-35, giving it a wider 3mm more and nothing was lost while making it wider, but perfected it even further.
 

bigfatfish

New Member
Jan 13, 2004
997
0
0
yeah I read that the 17-35 had a closer focusing dist too.

17-35 sounds really great for my film cam as well as the DSLR. But no budget unfortunately.

Anyway thanks for all helpful replies!
 

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,899
0
0
Planet Nikon
Nevermind, just BBB MTL, buy first talk later.
 

sykestang

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2003
5,550
0
36
48
studiospace
sykestang.clubsnap.org
Major point to note!!!

The AFD20-35 f/2.8 lens is hand polish... ie for the same AFD20-35 f/2.8, 2 identical lens will produce 2 different picture quality in terms of colour reproduction and contrast. Not to mention sharpness also.

ie. you either like it, or you hate it! The QC is not standardised. Also during the production period of the AFD20-35 f/2.8 back then... Nikon suffers a lot of wastage due to this inconsistency of the quality produced. Thus not surprise that most of the floating 2nd hand in the market are those who purchased but don't like the quality and sells it... especially those come from the US re-condition market. Unless you're sure that the guy who sold it actually going for upgrade or total lose interest photography... But this will be difficult to tell. :D

So don't make a fast decision when getting this lens... take your time and choose properly. I believe there are actually more than 1pc available in the 2nd hand market now. :)
 

bigfatfish

New Member
Jan 13, 2004
997
0
0
that was some pro advice thanks tang!

:thumbsup:
 

bigfatfish

New Member
Jan 13, 2004
997
0
0
sykestang said:
Major point to note!!!

The AFD20-35 f/2.8 lens is hand polish... ie for the same AFD20-35 f/2.8, 2 identical lens will produce 2 different picture quality in terms of colour reproduction and contrast. Not to mention sharpness also.

ie. you either like it, or you hate it! The QC is not standardised. Also during the production period of the AFD20-35 f/2.8 back then... Nikon suffers a lot of wastage due to this inconsistency of the quality produced. Thus not surprise that most of the floating 2nd hand in the market are those who purchased but don't like the quality and sells it... especially those come from the US re-condition market. Unless you're sure that the guy who sold it actually going for upgrade or total lose interest photography... But this will be difficult to tell. :D

So don't make a fast decision when getting this lens... take your time and choose properly. I believe there are actually more than 1pc available in the 2nd hand market now. :)

by the way, does the 17-35 have such QC problems?
 

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,899
0
0
Planet Nikon
bigfatfish said:
by the way, does the 17-35 have such QC problems?
Just BBB, MTL, buy first talk later.
 

bigfatfish

New Member
Jan 13, 2004
997
0
0
espn said:
Just BBB, MTL, buy first talk later.

yes sir! I shall BBB this march! MTL! :bsmilie:
 

sykestang

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2003
5,550
0
36
48
studiospace
sykestang.clubsnap.org
bigfatfish said:
yes sir! I shall BBB this march! MTL!
Yo bro... check with your uncle about my schedule lah... if you're really keen in getting it. :)
He'd know what I mean. Just tell him that. ;p
 

bigfatfish

New Member
Jan 13, 2004
997
0
0
:) thanks tang. but i already got a used 17-35 waiting already. getting it in march. after that friend comes back from assignment.
 

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,899
0
0
Planet Nikon
bigfatfish said:
:) thanks tang. but i already got a used 17-35 waiting already. getting it in march. after that friend comes back from assignment.
Buy this one first, then buy the 17-35 and sell this one lor :lovegrin:
 

bigfatfish

New Member
Jan 13, 2004
997
0
0
hahah.... BBB MTL right? :bsmilie:
 

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,899
0
0
Planet Nikon
Yeah BBB, MTL, buy first talk later.

Remember, it always works :thumbsup:
 

PhotoTime

Senior Member
Jun 9, 2004
533
0
16
Just wondering, what are the difference in quality between Tokina 20-35 mm F2.8 compared with this Nikon lens?
 

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,899
0
0
Planet Nikon
PhotoTime said:
Just wondering, what are the difference in quality between Tokina 20-35 mm F2.8 compared with this Nikon lens?
Where got fight???
 

nightwolf75

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 18, 2003
17,918
27
48
really MORE diaper changes
PhotoTime said:
Just wondering, what are the difference in quality between Tokina 20-35 mm F2.8 compared with this Nikon lens?
eh... i used to have the tokina b4 selling it off... while its pretty good for its price in terms of sharpness and colour reproduction, comparing the tokina with the nikon version is like comparing a lada with a ferrari...

the tokina has to be stepped down b4 its sharp. shooting at f2.8, while can be done if u dun need to enlarge ur pics, produced images a little on the soft side particularly ard the sharp edges. only at f4 and above then the images are sharp. the nikon version, needless to say, can be used at f2.8 comfortably.

the only downside of the nikon 20-35 (apart from the price, compared to tokina) is dat, in DSLR terms, its not too wide and not too tele (~30-53mm, in 35mm terms). on film, its great!
 

Status
Not open for further replies.