Talk me out of an ultrawide zoom

Paul Howell

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
9,686
Location
Scottsdale Az
Format
Multi Format
I have a 19 to 50 and 24 to 80 in Minolta A mount, the 19 to 50 is a full frame Sigma, it has a fair mount of distortion at the wide end, the 24 to 80, heavy, but it it sharp enough and makes a good travel lens. The Nikon was well thought of when it came out in the 90s.
 

Helge

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
3,938
Location
Denmark
Format
Medium Format
I have no idea what I’d use a wide zoom for. Get a couple of wide primes for the same price or a little more.
The 20mm 2.8 AF D is superb, light and relatively inexpensive.
But why even insist on AF? For 20mm AF is not that important.
 

benveniste

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 1, 2007
Messages
528
Format
Multi Format
Since I'm a big fan of ultra-wide-to-wide-normal zooms, don't expect me to say you're nuts. One of the things a wide-angle zoom allows you to do is to try different perspectives by simultaneously changing focal length and distance to the foreground elements of your composition.

For 35mm film, I use a 17-35mm f/2.8, but I've also paid to have the motor replaced twice. Before that, I used a Tokina 20-35mm f/2.8, and found that I wanted something a bit wider for interior shots.

The 20-35mm f/2.8 Nikkor was one of the last lenses Nikon produced with a ground aspherical element. A lot of these saw professional use, with the wear, tear, and casual abuse that implies. Be sure that you can check out the lens carefully and return it if it's no longer working as designed.
 

cjbecker

Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,378
Location
IN
Format
Traditional
I had one for a little while. The build quality was exceptional, the lens was sharp, the zoom range was pretty small tho. Ended up selling it, went back to prime lenses.
 

StepheKoontz

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2018
Messages
801
Location
Doraville
Format
Medium Format
I have the nikon AF-S NIKKOR 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G, it's a GREAT lens. Especially at the wide end. Obviously if you need an aperture ring, it's not a good option.
 

Moose22

Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2021
Messages
1,158
Location
The Internet
Format
Medium Format
Horatio said:
I’m seriously considering a Nikkor 20-35 f2.8 AF lens. Am I nuts?
Click to expand...

I have this lens. It's a classic, really. It was one of those lenses lots of pros would have in their bag if they were shooting for a newspaper or something.

It is big, a bit heavy. 77mm filters, which are beasts. Not as sharp as something like a 20mm prime, though it's sharp enough stopped down a little. And there is some distortion at 18mm you need to be aware of. The Nikkor 20mm primes I've used are sharper and a bit less distorted, but as a street photography lens or for snapshots where you want to get things quickly framed, it's fun and useful.

So, yeah, you're a little nuts. That said, even though I'm getting a wide angle prime, I'm keeping this one for a while. It's an interesting walking around lens, really good zoom range for street work, You'll be able to sell it on for close to what you paid, too, so there's not much downside in trying it out.
 

Ko.Fe.

Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
3,209
Location
MiltON.ONtario
Format
Digital
No idea how bad Nikkors are.
I have zero problems with consumer 22-55 and pro's L 16-35. Those are lenses I consider to keep. Canon EF they are.
But here is old 20-35 L... May be one day...
 

Christiaan Phleger

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
1,213
Location
Hawaii
Format
35mm RF
Mm I'd say nuts not to. This lens lens is somewhat underrated and is still a good one on high MP digital as well film. I waited until I found a good one at the price I was willing to pay and I've been pleased with it. There are some well used copies out there from the pro's, I know when I was a regular news shooter this (and especially the Canon version of this lens) was a must have everyday lens. I tried it back when it was new and wasn't very taken with it, but now compared to now this lens seems small and light, with a solid performance at all focal lengths. Sharp too, although I do wish it focused a bit closer; with a generally higher ISO you can avoid shooting wide open all the time. The lovely front element is nicely recessed but it does cause me concern so I try to filter it and am extra careful with filter changes as well as in the mounting action. I find a slight zoom adjustment to close to 28 keeps the rear element more recessed and less likely to contact something it shouldn't. They seemed to have held a fairly constant value (ha we'll see) so if you don't take to it you could pass it along probably no problem. The plastic ring seems too light duty and the cracks are well documented in this era of D lenses.
 

Fluidphoto

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
40
Location
Hamilton, ON
Format
Multi Format
I have the 17-35 f/2.8 AF-S... I think that it was mounted to my F4s for years. It is an awesome piece of glass.
 

benjiboy

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 18, 2005
Messages
11,970
Location
U.K.
Format
35mm
I have the Canon FD 16 - 35 f3.5 L zoom lens that I bought recently, and the image quality is excellent, so far I have only used it for street photography and although I own the four Canon FD prime lenses 17, 24,28 and 35mm besides any other considerations it saves around three and a half pounds in weight than carrying the primes.
 

PerTulip

Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2017
Messages
226
Location
Vienna
Format
Medium Format
I have often have the AF-S 12-24/2.8 on my F5. I'm the wrong guy to talk you out of ultra-wides.....
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,939
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Surely you know better than to come to Photrio to ask to be talked out of buying another lens!
If the speed, size (including filter size), cost and (in some cases) contrast/resolution and out of focus rendering compromises inherent in many zoom lenses don't bother you, then the convenience and flexibility advantages are clear.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,364
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
Horatio said:
I’m seriously considering a Nikkor 20-35 f2.8 AF lens. Am I nuts?
Click to expand...

I have that one and I find it can be very useful. I would not go wider since the distortion gets over powering. [ps I am not nuts]
 

MFstooges

Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2010
Messages
955
Format
35mm
Horatio said:
I’m seriously considering a Nikkor 20-35 f2.8 AF lens. Am I nuts?
Click to expand...
not at all. in fact the maximum aperture should be used as a guide to limit how many frames you should shoot in a month.
 

ericB&W

Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2021
Messages
117
Location
Italy
Format
35mm
If one doesn't need a very fast zoom, Sigma 21-35 f3,5/4,2 today can be found
for a ridiculous price compared to the performance.
Was the first superwide zoom to be made, is sharp, the only negative point is
a little of flare when used in backlight and the fact that can accept only circular filters because of the metallic fixed hood.
 
OP
OP

Horatio

Subscriber
Joined
Mar 13, 2020
Messages
964
Location
South Carolina
Format
Multi Format

It's good to know there's a decent Sigma available. I'm still on the fence (mainly because of cost for the 'fast' glass.) I'll keep this lens in mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…