Nikkor 20-35mm f/2.8

[Jorgen Udvang]

I've been offered what seems to be a mint copy of the 20-35mm for a reasonable price, and considering the fact that there's an FX format camera somewhere in my future, it looks like an interesting option. However, it would have to live on my DX-sensor cameras for a while first. Does anybody have experiences with that lens on either digital format?

Yes, I'm aware that the 17-35mm f/2.8 is a better lens optically, but having searched the used market for one for almost two years, I've noticed that more than half of the ones I've found have had faulty AF motors, and even then, they're more expensive than the 20-35. And strictly speaking, I've never used anything wider than 20mm anyway, so I can live with that limitation.

 

[jonoslack]

I've been offered what seems to be a mint copy of the 20-35mm for a reasonable price, and considering the fact that there's an FX format camera somewhere in my future, it looks like an interesting option. However, it would have to live on my DX-sensor cameras for a while first. Does anybody have experiences with that lens on either digital format?

Yes, I'm aware that the 17-35mm f/2.8 is a better lens optically, but having searched the used market for one for almost two years, I've noticed that more than half of the ones I've found have had faulty AF motors, and even then, they're more expensive than the 20-35. And strictly speaking, I've never used anything wider than 20mm anyway, so I can live with that limitation.

Hmm - I think they're supposed to be rather good . . . . . but wouldn't it be better to put the funds towards a 24-70, which is definitely good.

 

[S.P.]

I have one from analogue days.
Used it in the beginning with the D100 but didn´t like the angle of view on DX. Have not tested on the D3 yet.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Yes and no, Jono. For less than half the price of the 24-75, I can get the 20-35 and the 35-70, a combo that will give me a wider angle of view than the 24-75. The qualities of the 35-70 are indisputable, in addition to being a very nice portrait lens on DX, and since I have never gone wider than 20mm anyway, and I don't like big, heavy WA zooms with a dome the size of a football stadium in the front....

An alternative would be to buy the new Zeiss 18mm of course, which I'm sure is a wonderful lens, but that too will be costly, particularly considering the price of an 82mm polarizer

Another thing is that I simply like the design of the older lenses, with white, engraved characters instead of all the gold and glitter of the new ones.