who here owns the nikon 20-35 2.8?

I had this lens some years ago (with my D100).
- very solid build
- very sharp, just about at par with the 17-25 f/2.8 (which I got to replace it)
- I found it to have somewhat more pincushion distortion at the wide end

For me the added 3mm at the wide end was justification to get the 17-35 at the time. I tried them side-by-side and one does appreciate the seemingly little difference of only 3mm (especially with digital).

So,
- if you are OK with the 20mm at the wide end, you will love this excellent lens, which of course can be had much cheaper then the 17-35 or 17-55.

 

Robert,

Like Frits, I had a 20-35 a while ago with my first D70. Its build quality was about the best I've seen on a Nikon lens. For me, the 20-35 was a little large and heavy for its limited focal range, so I dropped it in favor of a 17-55 before too long. Its image quality was excellent, but I found myself near the 35mm mark most of the time. Here's a sample, http://GTIkeda.smugmug.com/photos/139495302-O.jpg, albeit taken with some experimental flash settings. You might have to click on the image itself to see the image in its uploaded size and remove the compression artifacts.

 

which is?.....

to buy or not to buy?