Talk me out of an ultrawide zoom

[Horatio]

I’m seriously considering a Nikkor 20-35 f2.8 AF lens. Am I nuts?

 

[Paul Howell]

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.

 

[Kino]

I’m seriously considering a Nikkor 20-35 f2.8 AF lens. Am I nuts?

Yes.
Buy it.

 

[awty]

Yes (you are nuts), buy the 20mm prime. Fantastic lens light and very compact......my favorite Nikon lens..

 

[Pieter12]

I don't know which Nikon you plan to put it one, but I have the 14-24 f2.8 and it is a killer lens.

 

[madNbad]

20mm? That’s almost a normal lens!

 

[Helge]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[beemermark]

I’m seriously considering a Nikkor 20-35 f2.8 AF lens. Am I nuts?

I thought you were talking about ultra wide?

 

[Moose22]

I’m seriously considering a Nikkor 20-35 f2.8 AF lens. Am I nuts?

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.]

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...

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I thought you were talking about ultra wide?

Yep. This is just sweet range! Nothing ultra.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

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.

 

[halfaman]

I had a Tamron SP 17-35 mm f/2.8-4 for my Canon and I always used it at 17mm. I sold it and bought a more compact Tokina AT-X 17mm f/3.5. So consider a prime as it has been suggested, you will safe space and probably also weight.

 

[narsuitus]

I’m seriously considering a Nikkor 20-35 f2.8 AF lens. Am I nuts?

The Nikkor 20-35 f/2.8 auto focus lens (right) is one of my favorite wide-angle zooms. It is very useful when I do not wish to carry my 18/24/28/35mm prime lenses.



Nikon Zooms by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[Fluidphoto]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I’m seriously considering a Nikkor 20-35 f2.8 AF lens. Am I nuts?

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]

I’m seriously considering a Nikkor 20-35 f2.8 AF lens. Am I nuts?

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]

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.

 

[Horatio]

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.

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.