Is the 18-35 nikkor worth the wait?

I am very slowly switching to autofocus. I am a bit of a wide angle

freak and love a prime 24/2.8 nikkor and a 21-35 mf sigima

(67mm) with my F3, FM, and nikkormats. The AF nikkor 18-35

makes my mouth water cause the price is so close to being

right. What performance will be gained besides the 4mm focal

difference? I never brag about sigma's, but the 21-35 has taken

some great pics and/or is the nikkor just another cheap plastic

marvel. I have learned thet newer is not always better. Any input

is much appreciated.

It all depends on who you ask. Some say it is very good. Other people say that it has some bad distortion. All I have read say it is plenty sharp. Definetly get it if you dont plan on shooting building or seascapes with the horizon in the top or bottom of the photo. If you do plan on using it for either of those then you must try it and see for yourself if the distortion is acceptable to you.

it has some distortion in the wide end, but I have seen lenses worse than that (eg nikon 28-70/3.5-4.5), in fact distortion was less than my expectations. it has a complex pattern not the usual barrel.

 

in the wide end wide open extreme corners are rather soft, other than that the lens is very sharp throughout its range. it has natural looking colour rendition and not prone to flare and ghosting. has some chromatic aberration under contrasty lighting, i see it sometimes, but it is rare.

 

very small and light compared to Nikon 17-35/2.8, very good value for the money.