Is the nikon 20-35mm f2.8d a viable alternative to the 18-35G?

I would be using on a D750. Appreciate any input.

The design and technology for zooms have improved a lot over the last 20, 30 years. Today there are better coatings, aspherical elements, more ED elements .... In fact, the 20-35mm f2.8 was the first wide zoom Nikon produced; i.e. the entire zoom range is in the wide range, below 50mm.

 

I would imagine the used value for the 20-35 is pretty low nowadays, and there are good reasons for it. Personally I don’t even like the 17-35mm f2.8 AF-S any more. I prefer the 18-35mm f3.5-4.5 G AF-S, which is not that expensive due to its slower, variable aperture and more plastic construction.

 

However, everybody’s tolerance of optical quality is different. Admittedly I am highly picky. I too have a D750 and the wide end of the 17-35mm f2.8 AF-S looks poor on 24MP. The long end is fine.

Don't have this one, but several other D series - very well manufactured, metal Pro lenses of old - I really like them even on the D 750 & D7200. Interestingly enough this particular 20-35 2.8 D lens is quite a bit more costly used than one might expect, least expensive examples over $400. Seems to usually be the case with older fast 2.8 lenses.

Close focusing distance is very important when it comes to ultra-wide focal lengths, so a drawback of the 20-35mm is that its minimum focusing distance is 1.7 feet. Eleven- or twelve-inch close focusing has been common for many years now.

 

Eric Sande

Eleven- or twelve-inch close focusing has been common for many years now.

Just curious - what would one photograph with a WA lens at a foot or less? I don't think I ever even use my macros as close as that, except for slide copying.

I'm on an old computer without any of my photos handy, but I've enjoyed being on my belly getting close to flowers or even trying to get a view from under a mushroom.

 

Eric Sande

I have begun to do that only for exceptional opportunities - gravity and age being what they are, "up" is so much more challenging than "down". The best purchase I've made an a good while is a tele macro.

I had the 20-35/2.8, it seemed much better optically than the 18-35D (not the newer G) lens I had previously. I fell into a deal on a 17-35/2.8 that seemed a little better than the 20-35/2.8 when I compared them on a D800, so the 20-35 was sold. The 20-35 seemed good enough on the D800, though.

 

I did miss the smaller size and weight of the 20-35, the 17-35 is notably larger and heavier on the front of a D8X0. On the other hand, the 17-35 is able to focus much closer as pointed out earlier. I find the closer min focus distance useful on occasion.

 

I'm not sure how the 20-35/2.8D would stack up against the 18-35G. I suspect that the much newer design of the 18-35G would win the optical contest, and go wider, as well. Thinking of the future, the 20-35/2.8 won't AF on the Z cameras, also.

The 20-35 was originally a PJ lens for film bodies, and acquitted itself well enough, until new designs have out paced it. I liked mine on my F100. I've never mounted in on a digital body, but I doubt it would impress at 24 MP's.

 

There is an issue with the 20-35 design in that it uses a mechanical ring to control AF or manual focus instead of the more modern AF/M switch. That design, with the ring, is a notorious source of problems for the lens models that use it. Nowadays, if that lens needs AF/M ring repair, since Nikon won't sell parts to the pro shops any longer, it has to go to Nikon, and it's not an inexpensive repair. The 20-35 enjoys a solid build, but it has been replaced by better performers that don't have the design issue of the AF/M ring hanging over them. Today, IMO, there are just better places to spend your money for a wide zoom. HTH

Thanks to all for your insight. Merry Christmas!

There is an issue with the 20-35 design in that it uses a mechanical ring to control AF or manual focus instead of the more modern AF/M switch. That design, with the ring, is a notorious source of problems for the lens models that use it. Nowadays, if that lens needs AF/M ring repair, since Nikon won't sell parts to the pro shops any longer, it has to go to Nikon, and it's not an inexpensive repair. The 20-35 enjoys a solid build, but it has been replaced by better performers that don't have the design issue of the AF/M ring hanging over them. Today, IMO, there are just better places to spend your money for a wide zoom. HTH

 

Can you elaborate a bit on the "problems" with the ring?

 

I have a couple of lenses in regular use that have one-my 105mm f/2.8 Micro is my most used(and I it fairly often in MF mode) but I also have an 80-200 f/2.8 with it, and I feel like at least one other lens although the specific identity is escaping me at the moment.

 

I seem to recall reading one report several years ago of an 80-200 where the lock button "fell in" to the lens, but that's the extent of what I've heard of.

 

Nikon still catalogs a few lenses with it-offhand the 14mm f/2.8, 105mm f/2 DC, and 135mm f/2 DC. I'm probably missing a few.

Can you elaborate a bit on the "problems" with the ring?

Plastic A-M Selector Ring Broken

Nikon 80-200 f2.8 AFD (Cracked Auto/Manual Switch Ring)

Nikon 80-200 AF-D: M/A focus ring selector broken

 

I had a few lenses with that A/M ring - on none of them that ring cracked.

Can you elaborate a bit on the "problems" with the ring?

 

I have a couple of lenses in regular use that have one-my 105mm f/2.8 Micro is my most used(and I it fairly often in MF mode) but I also have an 80-200 f/2.8 with it, and I feel like at least one other lens although the specific identity is escaping me at the moment.

 

I seem to recall reading one report several years ago of an 80-200 where the lock button "fell in" to the lens, but that's the extent of what I've heard of.

 

Nikon still catalogs a few lenses with it-offhand the 14mm f/2.8, 105mm f/2 DC, and 135mm f/2 DC. I'm probably missing a few.

 

The ring gets stiff and eventually freezes up, so you can't change from AF to M, or the reverse. At that point repair is required. Some report that happening to lens collars with that design even when stored away unused. Maybe that won't happen to your lens, or maybe it will. Among others, it happened to my copy.

Plastic A-M Selector Ring Broken

Nikon 80-200 f2.8 AFD (Cracked Auto/Manual Switch Ring)

Nikon 80-200 AF-D: M/A focus ring selector broken

 

I had a few lenses with that A/M ring - on none of them that ring cracked.

 

I wish I could say that about my copy of the 20-35, Dieter.

I wish I could say that about my copy of the 20-35, Dieter.

With the exception of the 70-180 I almost never used that ring - though that in no way guarantees that it won't crack anyway but it may reduce the risk at least somewhat. It appears that in your case the ring didn't crack but froze - something I admit I have not heard of until today.

I enjoy a suite of AFD lenses on my D4, the 20-35, still costly in the UK and a wedding photographers, favourite back in the day, a 35-70, a fast 50 and the great 85 1.4. I am very willing to believe that a D850 exposes shortcomings in these lenses but they are really good on my Nikon D4 and D7000. They feel as well made as the camera bodies and they all better at taking photos than I am. As for any problems, we seem to worry a lot about perceived obsolescence rather than planned obsolescence. I am sure my lenses will be around longer than me and then I will have nothing to worry about, unless the afterlife has the internet. All the best for 2019, Charles.

Just curious - what would one photograph with a WA lens at a foot or less? I don't think I ever even use my macros as close as that, except for slide copying.

Answering Sandy's question on a side-track: I have been a long-time proponent of the close-up wide-angle approach, in nature photography in particular! Used 24/2.8 and 20/3.5 on extension rings for many years.. And got myself the Laowa 15mm f/4 1:1 Wide Angle Macro lens around Christmas last year. That lens does exactly as advertised: 15mm wide angle.. close-up to 1:1 enlargement!! :):cool: Hard work to use (closed aperture, zero working distance, difficult to get the lighting right).. but there is a market for such use of wide-angle lenses!

 

And considering how bad my 24-70/2.8 AFS is close®-up, I wonder how dramatic the 20-35 can be,,

ShunCheung: In fact, the 20-35mm f2.8 was the first wide zoom Nikon produced; i.e. the entire zoom range is in the wide range, below 50mm.

 

About 20,000 copies of the Zoom-NIKKOR 28~45mm 1:4.5 were made from 1975 through 1978. Mine produces excellent images on my D700.

 

Marc

... In fact, the 20-35mm f2.8 was the first wide zoom Nikon produced; i.e. the entire zoom range is in the wide range, below 50mm. ...

 

Nikon made about twenty-thousand copies of its Zoom-NIKKOR 28~45mm 1:4.5 from 1975 to 1978. Mine produces excellent images on my D700.

 

Marc

Nikon made about twenty-thousand copies of its Zoom-NIKKOR 28~45mm 1:4.5 from 1975 to 1978. Mine produces excellent images on my D700.

 

Marc

I wasn't aware of the 28-45, but 1975 would put it in the pre-AI era, and 45mm isn't really wide angle, very different from the 20-35 the OP has in mind. Back in the 1990's I had a 24-50mm/f3.5-4.5 AF, which should be a couple of generations after the 28-45. The barrel distortion on the 24mm end was really bad and that was in the film era. I ended up selling it and eventually got the 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S, which was fine until 24MP+ came along.

When I got a black Nikon f2, it came with a later, improved version of the 43-86mm f/3.5. Like so many lenses on the "beginner" side, this is a lens more noted for its convenience than for its optical quality. (LINK with 43-86 images)

 

It's very useful, covering a short regular to short telephoto range.

Lines per centimeter are not everything, you should know.

When I got a black Nikon f2, it came with a later, improved version of the 43-86mm f/3.5. Like so many lenses on the "beginner" side, this is a lens more noted for its convenience than for its optical quality. (LINK with 43-86 images)

 

It's very useful, covering a short regular to short telephoto range.

Lines per centimeter are not everything, you should know.

The very first Nikon lens I bought was also a 43-86mm/f3.5. I bought it in 1977 along with my very first Nikon-brand body, a Nikkormat FT3. Both are among the first AI components. It was a convenient lens in that era, and I didn't buy another zoom until 1989 when I got the 80-200mm/f2.8 AF.

 

I still own that 43-86 today, mainly because it has some historical importance to me personally. Optically, I think its mediocre reputation is well deserved.

 

In the old days, it was mainly the 80-200 types zooms that were pretty good. In the last 3 decades, the quality of zooms have been improving significantly.

I still own that 43-86 today, mainly because it has some historical importance to me personally. Optically, I think its mediocre reputation is well deserved.

 

Indeed it is, at best, a mediocre lens by today's standards. But its image quality sometimes surprises. Here are two samples taken with my copy at 86mm, the first at f/3.5 and the second at f/8.

 

 

That second one is pretty much as sharp as can be desired, I think. But the first one's not bad for wide open in a 40-year-old lens.