Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Nikkor 20-35mm f/2.8

  1. #1
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,331
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Nikkor 20-35mm f/2.8

    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.

  2. #2
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Nikkor 20-35mm f/2.8

    Quote Originally Posted by Jorgen Udvang View Post
    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.

    Just this guy you know

  3. #3
    S.P.
    Guest

    Re: Nikkor 20-35mm f/2.8

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

  4. #4
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,331
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: Nikkor 20-35mm f/2.8

    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.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •