|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Google Translate.  | sent on March 31, 2020 Pros: Lightness, sharpness (especially in the middle), cost Cons: 18mm distortion, renge of focals Opinion: The Nikon 18-35 G is a lens that makes weight (less than 400g), size and cost its workhorses. I use it as a handyman on the Nikon d810 and I have to say that he does his job well, as at the end of the day I come home without suffering because of the weight of the machine-lens cover. From an optical point of view it is a good lens, closed to f8 is very sharp in the center and defends well even at the edges. It has good flare control and allows you to mount 77mm filters, which makes it a good landscape lens. The main limits are 2. First the fact that it starts at 18mm, vs 16/17 of the older brother F4 and the equivalents Tokina and Tamron. Secondly the distortion at 18mm, very noticeable. Personally I do not regret the choice, but having to buy an optics of this band, I would look forward to the Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4 which could be an interesting alternative. |
  | sent on March 30, 2020 Pros: little distortion, light, NITIDEZZA Cons: little wide-angle... Opinion: I love the opening 16mm or 14mm despite this I have owned this optics for 5 years... Because? very light, no distortion, contrasted and NITIDISSIMO in my opinion better than the 16-35mm f4. After I sold it I bought the 14-24 f2.8 and the 16-35 f4 perfect optics but the lightness, the compactness of the 18-35.... they made themselves heard. So if you want a travel optics, mounted all the time and you just need the 18mm well the 18-35 f3.5/4.5 mom nikon is the optics for you. Good ;) research |
 | sent on June 22, 2018 Pros: Excellent construction. Sharpness, resistance to making. Fast and accurate AF. Cons: Slight distortion between 18 and 20mm on FF, controllable in PP already with the camera. Opinion: Very good value for money. Ideal for urban photography and landscapes, when you do not want to bear of heavy optics. I find it wrong to list among the cons the low brightness and the lack of stabiizzazione: when you buy it you are already aware of these things. Recommended optics, which can be found at attractive prices on the used market. |
 | sent on June 22, 2018 Pros: Very light, quite sharp (closed a little), versatile, ability to use circular filters, good flare control Cons: Not suitable for night outings and indoor photos (unless you use a tripod), wide angle only 18mm Opinion: Taken used in excellent condition at a great price, and coming from a 16-35, I can say that overall it is a very good goal, quite sharp (more than 16-35) and countered. Well-controlled distortion (also better than the big brother). It's not up to the Tamron 15-30 f2.8... but for light outings, and during the day, that's fine. I find it wrong to list between 18 and 20mm of the very slight distortion on FF, if it is controlled in PP with a click: when you buy it you are already aware of this thing. If on the wide-angle side had dropped to 16mm it would have been perfect! |
 | sent on January 30, 2018 Pros: light, clear, very little distortion, excellent resistance to flare Cons: it is not stabilized, non-fixed diaphragm Opinion: Lens with excellent price-quality especially in used, suitable for landscapes and even street, very light to carry. Fast AF, Sharp, very little distortion, and for landscapes also has excellent resistance to flare. Less suitable for taking photos at night. It has no stabilizer and does not have a fixed diaphragm, but for this there are other much heavier and more expensive lenses. Certainly better this 18-35 than the 16-35 nikon (a disappointment), rather if you try something else then focus on the zoom tamron 15-30 (the top), or on the fixed samyang 14mm. But if you are looking for a good quality and light weight zoom this 18-35 the super-advice! |
 | sent on June 27, 2017 Pros: Lightweight, excellent image quality across the picture, exceptional backlighting, relatively inexpensive Cons: Lack of stabilization Opinion: A lightweight lens, with excellent sharpness, constant throughout the frame. Returns contrasted images and saturated colors. Distortion is well corrected by the camera or Nikon software. Exceptional Backlight Resistance. You feel the lack of stabilization, sometimes I have to discard shots at 1 / 15s 18mm. To have this feature you should buy the 16-35, but it is much heavier and more massive. Staying stabilized I would give him a 10, so I vote 9 |
 | sent on May 23, 2017 Pros: Excellent definition even at open diaphragms, light but at the same time I find that it is of good construction, autofocus in my satisfactory model. Cons: For now nobody. Opinion: I had a Sigma 17/35 that was not bad but I tried some shots with this lens that lent me a friend and I immediately decided to buy it because the yield is totally superior. Very high definition already at TA that rises almost at the level of fixed optics by closing a couple of stops, the colors I find them alive at the right point and for me does not need PP except limits cases, flare very well contained in my tests, tried again for a few shots but it was love right away. The AF I find that it is fast enough the lens hood has no problem and fits easily, for me it is a glass that for the value for money leaves no doubt .... it is to have in the kit without the risk of repenting. |
 | sent on December 04, 2016 Pros: optical quality, weight, resistance to flare, filters with 77mm diameter Cons: so far no Opinion: I wanted to return to wider fields of view of 24mm without spending too much. I found, after a patient in used research, this zoom lens and was amazed at the image quality that can give combined with the D750. The distortion is corrected fast in PP, the colors are pleasing and something to be reckoned, if you already have an important filter kit, the diameter of 77mm. |
 | sent on March 06, 2016 Pros: Lightweight, cost, quality, little distortion Cons: nothing for now Opinion: I bought it after reading many reviews of this and the Tamron 17-35 ... in the end I opted for nikon ... I was very happy, starting from the weight, very light. Plastic but well built. The quality is high, the distortion is slight, and behaves very well on my d700. I think of modern sensors give the maximum. Delighted for quality tremendous value for money for a high-level optical ff. |
 | sent on January 26, 2016 Pros: Cost, weight and size, quality, resistance to flare, low distortion Cons: Slight vignetting at 18mm, opening is not constant Opinion: EXCELLENT lens. I needed a lens with which to do it all on full frame and I was very hesitant because reading the opinion of people on the internet looked like a piece of plastic .. Instead, despite the opinion of many, I found it extremely valid. Clear already at full aperture and across the frame, lightweight and compact, excellent color rendering, no aberration or flare even with the sun in the frame .. really nice! if it had to slightly brighter constant aperture would be outstanding. |
 | sent on October 16, 2015 Pros: Price, lightness, diameter filters, sharpness, minimal distortion, after months of use I can affirm with certainty that it is an embarrassing optics... for others... do not compare it to the old model, are not even distant relatives. Cons: He doesn't have any! The cons is not having it, I find it good even to the touch.. Opinion: Sharp, I was able to compare it to 16-35 and I can safely say that on D3 has a minor drop of sharpness at the edges without prejudice that his big brother is 16mm! For landscapers the lack of the stabilizer is a merit.. It should not be excluded every time you place on tripod, the distortion said by many is practically non-existent and very little vignette, vibrant colors.. Absolutely to buy, it costs little and it is light, I have nothing else to add.. I correct the shot in January 2019-tested in depth on d610, even better than on the D3, the higher resolution of the sensor greatly improves the performance of the lens that does not show any kind of weak point.. Rated 9 |
  | sent on September 17, 2015 Pros: Very light, focal excursion, quick and precise focus. Versatility. Excellent as a video optics. Cons: With the standard lampshade becomes flashy for street Opinion: In the same way as I was used to analogue, I have a 35 that widens to the wide angle in an important way. and gives the best up to 90 degrees, so great for landscapes, mountains and trips to the city of art. Sharp to be able to crop much, beautiful colors. There was a brother 35-100 AF-S would be a boon. Also good to replace the 18-55 on the APS-C, it becomes a bit flashy especially with the lampshade, but perfect as "sharp", another world. Update: On Z6 with FTZ is very well balanced, fantastic sharpness (better than the D610) af perfect, the distortion corrects in the car, grade 9. |
 | sent on August 30, 2015 Pros: Clarity, light weight, price, color, ability to use filters Cons: Absence of the stabilizer, not very bright Opinion: Beautiful optics for landscapes and travel photography in general, on a cruise I used pretty much just that, because it adapts to many situations: landscapes, narrow streets, monuments, portraits ambientati (35 mm), etc.. etc. What strikes me most is the blue of the sky, it is beautiful like there polarizer mounted. The distortion to 18 mm can not find it a problem because even with Nikon Capture NX-D can choose to correct it or not, depending on the picture (there are photos in which I like). |
 | sent on August 25, 2015 Pros: Clarity, lightness, ring holders 77, internal focus. Cons: Terrible distortion to 18 mm. Opinion: I kept this lens thanks to a long loan of a friend. Lightweight, extremely sharp to the edges and with its beautiful ring filter holder I really adored so much that I'm buying these days. For me it is the right focal length for reportage, to take it on holiday and wander. only drawback the strong distortion to 18 mm. for the rest, spectacular value. |
 | sent on August 25, 2015 Pros: Clarity, light weight, price, ability to use filters, good resistance to flare Cons: to be a 18 I appettavo less distortion Opinion: I bought this lens for my D810, to be used as targets by "walking" because it really is very light, and the angle of view is great for landscapes, but also for a portrait. Great clarity to this view of recent production, which uses many of the latest SLR MPX particularly the series D8XX, the sharpness remains good even at the edges of the frame. Excellent value for money, definitely recommended |
 | sent on August 02, 2015 Pros: Clarity, lightness, autofocus, filters 77, very few aberrations, excellent resistance to flare, economicarnuniformità the frame from the center to the edges, in any excursion Cons: a little dark, needs to be prepunched 1-2 stops to give the best (a bit 'like everyone else). plasticky (but not too) Opinion: I bought this wide zoom for my not being able to take the D800E 14-24 (16-35 even consider, found bad after some tests), and I am benissimornla distortion is correggibilissima with 2 clicks, makes file full of details, excellent colori.rnper what coast is really fantastic, light that seems to have nothing nice dietro.rnmolto the star effect in apertures! rnrnconsigliatissimo !! |
 | sent on July 01, 2015 Pros: Optical very sharp from the center to the edges at least on the d700, light, allows the use of filters to the plate, the seals bochettone graft, no chromatic aberration and overall economic Cons: opening relatively dark, building not just at the highest levels although not bad, Wheel of maf a little loose, even I find the distortion to 18 physiological and easily uncorrectable for a view like this Opinion: x as all those who have a nikon fx was not an easy choice that of wide angle, having the nikon 24-70 I was often to be desired something more wide but did not want to invest big money, so, after extensive reading and having viewed photos that are on the net, I decided to take a year and now I am very satisfied about the purchase, of course, it would have been better if he had a f2.8 aperture and a focal length of 14mm max but then it would have been another lens costing three times. rnSintetizzerei well: little cost, low weight so resa.rnDevo give credit to Nikon to have made a lens for landscape with a price / quality unbeatable nothing to do with the old 18-35 af-d that on digital displays all limits a project superato.rnLo would change only with a 16-35 f2.8 with possibility to install filters and without the useless (for optical wide) vr, but does not exist at the time. |
 | sent on February 04, 2015 Pros: Lightweight, excellent sharpness Cons: No one in particular, because the distortion in the 18mm consider physiological. Opinion: I found this lens a welcome surprise. First, it is lightweight and at the same time good quality, and then it is surprisingly sharp, even in the corners. Will that my d700 digests better than other, more recent FF, but so! RnHo the 14-24 f2.8 but I needed a lens to be able to mount my filters of Lee; the choice was between this and the 16-35 VR and after reading a few reviews, I threw myself on the 18-35. Never choice was more apt, because at a price quite lower than the 16-35 VR has little to envy! RnIl VR precisely, but in a wide angle that mostly use the tripod honestly I can do without, and then the lightness and practicality of this is truly a gem and make it easy to use even hand libera.rnInsomma for me is a Highly Recommended for sure! |
 | sent on September 20, 2014 Pros: Sharpness, sharpness and even sharpness, color rendering, weight ridiculous price, good focus for a wide Cons: Vignetting and distortion at 18mm high, slight drop in sharpness at the edges to 35mm, slight curvature of field at 18mm Opinion: I purchased this magnificent wide-angle as a result of a comparison made between the 14-24, 16-35 and 18-35 ... rnche just say ... as sharpness practically not distinguished the difference between this and the two behemoths plasticotto more famous indeed it is well below the 16-35 !!! rnrnPresenta a slight curvature of field at 18mm which slightly reduces the yield at the far ends, the better it has to f8 / f11 to f16 becomes soft (the 14-24 is slightly than f16). Distortions and vignetting are all easily removed in the 18-35 post.rnrnTenuto neck is fabulous, almost seems not to have it, the other two never mind ... turning the car around the neck for the entire walk dolomite are unrealistic, at least for me .rnrnIl 14-24 and 16-35 are more contrasted and saturated but the differences are really subtle. In the 18-35 backlight is worse, not as regards the resistance to flare, in my opinion good, but to play as the rays of the sun ... unless defined in 18-35.rnrnin conclusion: the best wide angle lens for nikon value / prezzo (I do tamron sigma approach) .rnrnchi looking for a wide angle to a "right" price, good quality and with a weight of just 385g should at least try it! rnrn ... if anyone had any doubt about the quality of this lens = => http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Best-lenses-for-the-Nikon-D800E-Wide-angle-primes-and-zooms/Best-wide-angle-zooms-for-landscapes |
 | sent on October 21, 2013 Pros: Lightweight and compact, crystal clear. rnrn Cons: Distortion at 18mm evident, but is corrected with special sw. Stellato in the backlight rather ugly, much better than the 16-35 for example. Opinion: I come from the right, I had the 12-24 and this 18-35g on FF has similar size, lighter weight, and performance in terms of risolvenza much better, especially at the edges. And to top it cheap, at least compared to many other nikon lenses. Plastic housing, but I also like that and not give me any problem frankly. Missing the stabilizer, but I've never had a stabilizer on wide-angle lenses that I use mostly on a tripod with a little chiusi.rnIl aperture wide-angle lens for the mountaineers, no doubt about it! (And thanks to its light weight and compact size allows you to use a tripod less challenging, especially with no wind.) Rnrn |
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.May Beauty Be Everywhere Around Me
