Nikon AF-S FX NIKKOR 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED Zoom Lens with Auto Focus for Nikon DSLR Cameras

I've been looking for a nice wide-angle lens for a couple of years now (especially after moving to full frame three years ago) and just couldn't decide on anything in particular. I was looking for something very sharp throughout the frame, wide enough for most landscapes or architecture in closed-up spaces and light enough to take anywhere. I didn't want to buy some cheap kit or third-party lens which might be good enough. I'm a self-proclaimed pixel peeper and I knew I wouldn't be happy with a lens that exhibited imperfections such as chromatic aberration, softness in the corners or possible focusing issues. I wanted something that also produced good color and clarity. Up until this point I had tried the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 and liked it, but the lens was very heavy and I just could't see myself carrying it around in my bag just in case, or take it on long walking trips for casual shooting. The 14-24mm f/2.8 is the kind of lens you take out only if you REALLY intend to shoot some serious landscapes, or during important low light events that require ultra wide angle. The weight is a bit prohibitive and the size is ridiculous for casual outings. I then picked up a 28mm f/1.8G which is an excellent lens, super sharp, light, great for landscapes on a full frame body, but isn't wide enough for shooting large buildings around the city, especially when you're too close to them. I really wanted something wider for when I needed it. So, I began looking around at other options. I was deliberating between the Nikon 18-35mm f/3.5-45G and the Nikon 16-35mm f/4G VR. The price on both was fairly close, but more people seemed to buy the 16-35mm f/4G VR. At that point I asked myself a couple of questions. 1.) Do I need VR on this lens? - For me the answer is No. I would use it for landscapes in good light, and for long exposures the camera and lens would be mounted to a tripod. I guess some would argue I could do semi-long exposures hand-held with VR, but honestly,... how often would I ever do that? Almost never. In low light and at high ISO, full frame cameras are excellent these days and a wide angle can be easily hand-held at very slow shutter speeds even without VR. 2.) Do I need constant aperture of f/4? - For me the answer is No. Why would I? The 18-35mm is slightly faster at its widest with an aperture of f/3.5 so that's a bonus. At it's longest it becomes an f/4.5. No big deal there and not a big difference from the 16-35mm f/4. Most landscapes are shot anywhere from f/5.6 and smaller, so whether or not the lens is constant aperture, there doesn't seem to be any advantage. 3.) Do I need the extra two millimeter difference between 16mm and 18mm? - For me the answer is No. For some people this may be important and every millimeter counts, but for me the difference is not big enough to justify paying more. 4.) Which lens is sharper from corner to corner? - I did a lot of research before I made up my mind and in the end the 18-35mm seemed just a smidgen sharper than the 16-35mm f/4 G VR. That is what really mattered to me the most. The performance of the 18-35mm is just beautiful. After deliberating for weeks going back and forth, I settled on the Nikon 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G. It is a superb lens. Not only is it sharp, it also produces great colors and contrast, exhibits easy-to-fix wide angle distortion, easily accepts filters, is light enough to carry around just about anywhere (though not too light in that cheap sort of way), is well-built, focuses fairly quickly, and compared to other Nikon wide-angle zooms it is quite affordable! This lens is a gem. The only minor negative I can think of (if I must) is the zoom ring, which when first used, can be a little bit tough to turn. This gets better with frequent use. Would I recommend this lens? Absolutely. I shoot it with a Nikon D610 and a Nikon D750 and these work great together. DX/CROP SENSOR SHOOTERS... This lens is great on any Nikon, but if you're shooting with a crop sensor and looking for ultra wide angle, you may need something wider than 18mm. This is a wide lens on a full frame body, but on a crop sensor it may not be wide enough for you. It would make it about a 28mm equivalent (1.5 crop factor multiplied my 18mm) at the wide end. You'll want to look into wide angle lenses specifically designed for DX models, BUT.... if you plan to upgrade to full frame sometime soon, this 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G would be a great choice. ONE MORE THING THOUGH.... If I were looking for a landscape lens today and I didn't need the flexibility of a zoom, I would also look into the newly released Nikon 20mm f/1.8G. It is two millimeters narrower, but it offers a much wider aperture at f/1.8 (for low light situations) and may be sharper from corner to corner (although honestly this 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G is really, really good). If the 20mm f/1.8G is as sharp as the 28mm f/1.8G, it should be phenomenal.

There are already so many good reviews for this lens it's hard to add anything that has not been said already. On my D600 this lens is sharp, corner to corner with no noticeable vignetting, even wide open. (In a laboratory maybe, but not in the real world...) This is great because it means you can crop aggressively and not worry too much about IQ. And that means fewer lens changes. There have been some complaints about the lens is light, but since I travel with it, I see this as a plus. Despite being light, it does not give the impression of being cheap. It feels well-constructed and nicely balanced on the D600. Some reviewers have given this lens 4 stars for being 'plastic'. In this price category, it does not seem sensible to my mind to mark a lens down for having a polycarbonate barrel. If Nikon offered this lens in metal with a higher weight and a higher price, I bet it wouldn't sell. What I want is IQ and this lens delivers way above expectations. The step-up in barrel diameter is strangely comfortable to grip - almost makes me wish my other lenses were shaped this way too. What confused me a bit at first, is that unlike the similar-sized 24-85mm I have, the zoom ring is closest to the camera and the focus ring is way out in front. I got comfortable quickly, but changing back and forth between lenses may take a bit of getting used to. The front lens element does protrude a bit, so get a filter to leave on the lens for protection. A negative for me is the 77mm filter size. It seems the days when a 62mm filter fitted most of your lenses is long gone. I got the Hoya HMC UV slim frame and it does not vignette at all as far as I can see. Some have commented that the lens is not fast, but remember fast = shallow depth of field. Since I mostly use this for landscapes, f3.5 is way fast enough and I actually like the fact that I do not have to remember to keep switching the VR on and off as I move from tripod to handheld and back. Shot into the bright tropical sun, with the sun in frame, I can see no ghosting or flaring. Not at f3.5, nor at f14. The ED coatings must therefore work as advertised, though I suspect a low winter sun might cause minor flaring. However, I have seen some wide angles that seem to flare no matter where the sun is, so I think this is really well-controlled. If like me, you already have the 'kit' 24-85mm and are worried that getting this as well will be over-kill, don't. At the wide end 6mm makes more difference than would think. I photographed a country lane at 24mm and 18mm to compare and the 18mm shot draws the eye in much further - giving a far better impression of a receding tunnel of greenery. I am delighted with the lens. It cannot compete with the 14-24mm for IQ. But compare apples to apples and tell me if you can beat the IQ for the price. If you plan to travel and don't want to drag along a collection of primes, this light-weight is a great companion to the 24-85mm and 70-300mm.

Nice lens. It feels a little cheaply built, you feel the plastic and the movements can feel sticky. But for the price it delivers more than you can ask for. I've found it most useful for urban photography, but have used it for waterfalls and some nature in Iceland and Switzerland. It is light, which is nice and of course a tradeoff of having more plastic and less glass. If you need a wide angle nikon lens on a budget this is a fabulous choice.

Der Titel steht für den Vergleich des 18-35 zum 14-24 (an D800). Natürlich hinkt der Vergleich. Fotografiert habe ich innen (Kunstlicht), außen "blaue Stunde", je aus der Hand und vom Stativ. Bilder jeweils mit 18-20-24mm Brennweite! Ich habe 8 neutrale Personen am Monitor (24") bewerten lassen. Vergleich Stativ innen: 18-35 und 14-24. Kein Unterschied 4:4 Vergleich Hand innen: 14-24 gewinnt klar 1:7 *1) Vergleich Stativ außen: 18-35 und 14-24. 5:3, eigentlich kein Unterschied. Vergleich Hand außen: 18-35 und 14-24. 3:5, eigentlich auch kein Unterschied. *1) Verschlusszeit mit dem 18-35 zu lang, daher eher "verwackelt" Pro/Cons: Mit dem 18-35 liegt die D800 sensationell in der Hand und hängt erträglich am Gurt an der Hüfte. Das 14-24 ist ein kopflastiger Klotz, "rum tragen" macht begrenzt Spaß. Fotos mit internem Blitz: Beim 14-24 ist die Gegenlicht-Blende fest und es ist mächtig, daher wirft es riesige Schatten. Es ist nicht mit internem Blitz zu verwenden. 18-35 kann man ohne Geli verwenden. Ab 21mm ist es dem Blitz nicht mehr im Weg. Auch darunter fällt es je nach Aufnahmesituation nicht auf. Beim "Pixelzählen" der Bilder vom Stativ, kann ich keine Unterschiede feststellen. In einigen wenigen Bildsituationen bei wenig Licht konnte ich beim 18-35 leichte Vignettierung erzeugen. Für 99% meiner Aufnahmen völlig unerheblich. Über 4 Jahre habe ich das 14-24. Ich habe es wenig benutzt. Ich bin aber generell kein "Weitwinkel Typ". Das Gros meiner Bilder mache ich mit dem AF-S 24-70 2.8, auf Platzt 2 ist das AF-S 50mm/1.4, usw. Mit dem 14-24 sind mir einige aufsehen erregende Aufnahmen gelungen. In meiner persönlichen Top 100 ist aber nur ein Bild in 14mm Brennweite. Meist hat mir beim 14-24 Brennweite nach Oben gefehlt. Ohne jedwede Reue verkaufe ich mein 14-24 und bin sehr begeistert von meinem neuen 18-35. Vermeintlich "große" Unterschiede hinsichtlich "Verarbeitungsqualität" sind in der Praxis für den normalen, bis semi professionellen Anwender praktisch nicht vorhanden. Hohes Gewicht, kaum Spiel bei den Bedienelementen und ein hoher Preis, nimmt der Verbraucher als "hochwertig" war. Die Funktion der Linse ist aber, den Sensor mit ausreichend Auflösung zu bedienen, nicht zu Verzeichnen oder zu Vignettieren, und über einen durchschnittlichen Anwendungszeitraum zu funktionieren. Wer Brennweite unter 18mm "seltenst" braucht und nicht bei schwachem Licht mit niederen ISO Werten aus der Hand fotografieren möchte, der braucht kein 14-24.

Initially i do not knew if i will buy this lens or 16-35, and i opted by this due to its lower price and size. I am very happy with its performance, sharpnes and light weight. Very good to use with circular filters because do not causes vigneting in the corners. The only issue is the distortion but the distortion correction in post processing can help here. So i am very happy with this lens, and i recomend for those who cant buy 16-35 and want a lightweight lens.

If you have something like a 24-120mm F4 then this lens is a good second lens for your camera. As a F3.5 to F4.5 this lens cops flack because it is not a continuous F4 but its only one third of a Stop up and down from F4 anyway; this is hardly a big deal. For Nikon photographers these older AF-S lenses are much cheaper than the new Z series lens but can be adapted to the new Z bodies with the FTZ II adapter. Given appropriate care this lens is robust and should last you for years and years. Great lens for all those extra wide angle shots. I use mine for cloud-scape photography.

Après avoir longtemps hésité entre les différents modèles de la gamme Nikon, j'ai finalement choisi ce 18-35 et je ne le regrette pas : - parce que l'ancien 17-35 n'est plus assez bon pour les capteurs comme le D800 qui sont exceptionnellement précis ; - parce que le duo 14-24 et 24-70 coûte un bras et oblige à changer d'objectif juste au mauvais moment ; - parce qu'avec 36 mégapixels, je peux recadrer mes photos et transformer un cliché pris en 35 en photo prise au 70 et conserver encore 18 millions de pixels ; - parce que la qualité des verres ED (faible dispersion) est vraiment extraordinaire ; - parce que le 16-35 est un peu plus large, OK, stabilisé, OK, mais beaucoup plus cher et beaucoup, beaucoup plus lourd. Et que la stabilisation, de toute façon, sur une focale à 20 mm, sert très peu, d'autant plus qu'elle ne stabilise que les mouvements du photographe, et pas les mouvements du sujet (par exemple les enfants qui bougent, seront toujours flous au 1/40, même avec un stabilisateur), et que de toute façon, on peut monter en ISO pour gagner en temps de pause..

Se trata de un objetivo gran angular con una relación calidad-precio muy buena, su nitidez sorprende desde el primer disparo. Estuve planteandome el Nikkor 14-24G f/2.8, sin embargo el precio se me iba mucho y finalmente me decidí por este, más pequeño, más ligero y se pueden utilizar filtros normales (Sin necesidad de utilizar los portafiltros Lucroit). Totalmente recomiendable su compra.