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.
 

The 2nd hand price ranges from 1K to 1.2K.
 

wah ESPN up so early on sunday ah! anyway thanks for your reply.

any idea how the performance of the lens?
 

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."
 

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.
 

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!
 

Nevermind, just BBB MTL, buy first talk later.
 

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. :)
 

that was some pro advice thanks tang!

:thumbsup:
 

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?
 

bigfatfish said:
by the way, does the 17-35 have such QC problems?
Just BBB, MTL, buy first talk later.
 

espn said:
Just BBB, MTL, buy first talk later.


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

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
 

:) thanks tang. but i already got a used 17-35 waiting already. getting it in march. after that friend comes back from assignment.
 

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:
 

hahah.... BBB MTL right? :bsmilie:
 

Yeah BBB, MTL, buy first talk later.

Remember, it always works :thumbsup:
 

Just wondering, what are the difference in quality between Tokina 20-35 mm F2.8 compared with this Nikon lens?
 

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???
 

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.