1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Nikon 18- 35 3.5-4.5 ..owners

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by mood, Aug 6, 2007.

  1. mood


    Jun 27, 2007
    So Fla
    looking at this lense for landscape work
    I know its not the 17-35, but also a third of the price
    and not sure 2.8 is needed , because I'm usually stopped down for DOF

    How good/ bad is this lens for what I intend?
    any people with experience with it, love to hear

    again...I know its not the 17-35 league, so no need to compare

    currently use Tokina 12-24, some 35f2 for most shots
    just bought the 17-55 DX, but it doesn't seem landscape oriented in my limited time with it...
  2. I had it for a while. Just way too much distortion for me. I assume that could be corrected in PS, but I didn't have it at the time.

    On a positive note, the lens renders nice, contrasty colors. If you know how to correct the distortion, it's a great buy.
  3. I have had the 18-35 for a little over a year now. I love the colors and contrast. The distortion is there, but depending on the subject, is it really noticable??? Brick wall, yes, typical landscape, possibly. The used market is particular soft for this lens so you should be able to pick up a good copy for about $280-300.
  4. It does a fine job of landscape. The distortion is there, but you'll only see it in a real landscape image if you have a straight horizon somewhere near one of the edges of the frame. In that case, the distortion can be fairly noticeable and you'd want to correct it. However, at least for my shooting, that's fairly rare. I also have the 18-200VR, which has even more distortion around 18mm, and I've only needed to correct the distortion on about ten images out of several thousand. I can remember four or five that I had to correct with the 18-35 when I had it.

    As others have noted, colors and contrast are excellent. Sharpness is pretty good too, although clearly not the equal of the 17-35. It's also pretty snappy at focusing for a screwdriver lens.
  5. I agree, I have had this lens for the past three years. I like it a lot. It is not heavy and makes a good packing around lens. I have been thinking of getting the 17-55 but like you can't justify the cost when I really don't need the 2.8 for landscapes. I have not had a distortion issue with the landscapes I take. The only major down side to me is the amount of flare it has. I always use the hood and try to be very careful with sun angles. The other negative for me is the glass bulges out it is not flat. I have a few finger prints that I have to remove because I don't remember the glass sticks out. All in all it is a great lens.
  6. nykonian


    May 4, 2007
    New York
    Frank, 17-55 is "not landscape oriented"? Are you sure that you got a good copy? :)  From my understanding, this is probably one of the best landscape lenses from Nikon other than 17-35mm and 12-24mm.
  7. Baywing


    Feb 22, 2005
    CT USA
    I think it's a great value lens. I've owned one for at least 5 years and it's one of my favorites, maybe because it's the widest I've got. As said, there is a tendancy to flare, but if you mind the light hitting the front element, it's very sharp and contrasty. Ideal f stop is around f11, it's soft wide open and starts loosing sharpness again past f16 which is about what I'd expect. Works great on FF (film) where f11-f22 is best.
    Sample from the D2x:
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    Sample from F5:
    View attachment 109875
  8. mood


    Jun 27, 2007
    So Fla
    hey Brian
    its sharp
    but its better at 2.8 thru maybe 8
    after 8 the far off is not as good as I thought
    don't get me wrong, I didn't buy it specifically for landscape, but hoped it would be my mate to the 12-24 for it
    then again...I have only had it since Sat.
    need to shoot some more and see...

    I think the 12-24 and 17-35 are more suited to landscape than the 17-55
    thats all I'm saying,,,the 17-55 strength is wider open...

    how's the fire sale going ??
  9. nykonian


    May 4, 2007
    New York
    Frank, seems that your lust disease just gets worse. Would you consider a 85/1.4 before 18-35mm? :) 

    The "fire sale" is going well. Still waiting for a couple of decisions though :) 
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.