Trade off of ED glass value and light capturing F stop rating of the 18-35 and 20-35 lenses and lower ISO ability.

[r._lafayette]

I have also notes quite a bit of posted info in this area and it has

catalyzed a curiosity for me also. I note that this newer 18-35mm

3.5-4.5 lens has ED glass, and the older discontinued 20-35 2.8 has

non ED glass, but a greater light capturing capacity.

 

The greater light capturing capacity would seem to translate into

being able to use a lower ISO rating digitally. But the reviews that I

have looked at, at least Bjørn Rørslett�s review refers to the 20-35

having undesirable chromatic errors, color fringing in the periphery

and out-of-focus areas, and lack of sharpness due to this.

 

This all made me wonder (omit the 17-35 here, which would be the clear

winner) about the solution of : with the trade off of lower min F stop

ISO of the 20-35 and ED sharpness of the higher F stop 18-35 � which

lens of the two would be likely to come out the winner ?

[frank uhlig]

It depends on how the race is run, does it not?

 

Maybe one of the lenses has an off day and the other one does not really want to run, but rather would like to be used for taking pictures.

 

My two bits on racing lenses against each other is : all bets off!

(What a nonsense question re photography this one is.) Sorry.

 

Or maybe I just do not understand what you are looking for here. f/3.5 versus f/2.8 is of very little photographic effect after all .. 18 versus 20 mm neither, etc etc. Neither of these lenses is a champion, that is well know, neither is a dud, also well known, so what is your point?

 

How about the small sample differences that might obliterate all those you re trying to find to help you decide this race? All bets off in reality, in my opinion. Cheers to the dead heat here!

[r._lafayette]

Well, Frank, your sentence beginning " Or maybe," and prematurely ending with "after all" was beginning to be of some help and assistance. Too bad that was all you had to contribute in your spiked eggnog diatribe, here.

Why did you bother wasting space with this psuedo response ?

[helene_carter]

It seems like the guy want to get some feel for the relative value of ED glass and or a lower F stop rating of the two lenses. How hard is that to understand ?

It actually sparks my curiosity, also, as I don't have an answer to the question, myself.

[rick_helmke]

If I had to choose between an extra f/stop and ED glass, I go with the glass every tme. I'd need an overwhelming reason to go with the faster lens and those reasons do exist but still, I'll take the ED glass.

 

Rick H.

[hugh_t]

Neither the 18-35 or the 20-35 seem like lenses I would regularly use wide open, more of landscape use, I'd probably save the money and go 18-35, the extra 2 mm and the ed glass would be the main reasons.

[ben_hepner]

Hey, whoever started this, thanks, this has some use for me also. My son is interested in beginning apprentice interning with known wedding photographer in our area, but you might say this question is from me. His interest is of the use of a wide zoom, with a D1x (which he has) for handheld use. I have a bit of a head start on this in that he has been bugging me for answers in this area and I have also looked at various wide AF zooms from Nikon and Cannon. This 18-35 could be set, with one of the D1x commands to stay at 4.5, in aperture priority, to the best of my knowledge, and then one program mode away with handheld shots that must be wider the mid range portrait range. He has a low light 1.8 Nikon 50mm = 75.

Then the question is would he be able to use the 18-35, at 4.5, with his D1x, and not miss that much of a difference to the 2.8 that the other wide zooms offer. The 20-35 has come way down in price, in the used markets and is not much different price wise to a new 18-35. The 17-35 is financially way out of his league.

 

You could say, just go out and see if the 4.5 is light sensitive enough for handheld use, but if I was dead certain on that point, well, I would not be writing this. This forum has a huge interface with experienced, seasoned photographers.

From what I have seen the only caveats on this 18-35 are the reviewers references to low light circumstances.

 

Are the reviewers being conservative in their assessment of the practical usage of the 4.5 f stop for wedding or party type indoor available light, non flash use with a D1x ?

 

Or is that 2.8 to 4.5 difference in F stop truly insignificant for hand held work ?

[ky2]

f/2.8 vs f/4.5 is rougly 1 1/3 stops. Nothing major. Use a faster film, or dial up a higher ISO on your DSLR.

 

The thing is -- the 18-35 isn't a bad lens at all. It has its shortcomings, but its effectively sharp at f/8, it's light, it's small, and it focuses pretty fast. However, it is a G lens-- hence it's useless on manual bodies. It distorts (far more than a prime) so its not practical to use it for architecture. The greatest drawback that I found that lens to exhibit is that it flares a lot. Stick a bright light source and that lens becomes a glow-in-the-dark gadget. I can provide examples for that behavior-- believe me, I have plenty.

 

I don't know much about the 20-35, I never owned it. But I do know that its much more usable on older, manual-bodies.

[ben_hepner]

There you go, my son is going to eat this information up. Thanks. I would be more than happy with any other perspectives.

[david_tolcher]

I have the 20-35 and use it as a 'standard' lens on both a D100 and an F5. Have not used the 18-35 but so cant compare. I already find an F2.8 viewfinder quite dark compared to 1.4/2 prime lenses which could be a factor for e.g. indoor use. In terms of quality - I detect no fringing or lack of sharpness from the zoom in quite critical use, suspect not a practical issue. Provia slides have excellent contrast and sharpness, as do the digital files from the D100. I would always go with the 20-35, it is a pro spec lens, the build quality is stunning, minimal distortion in all except the most demanding situations and the quality of output is as good as any other lense I own. It does flare relatively easily as one might expect and especially with the L37 filter it appears. They are relatively good value now also.

 

David Tolcher

UK

[shoshana]

Not an answer to the original question ... but a comment an earlier reply.

 

I have the 18-35 and it's *not* a G lens and therefore *could* be used on all current Nikon cameras that I'm aware of. Whether one would actually want to use it on a manual camera ...

 

Why this has any reference to a digital Nikon I don't know though. Except that it's part of the 'don't buy a G lens' arguement... ;)

 

'shana

[mark_korabo]

The 18-35 is a "D" lens with an aperture ring, I use it on my F3(manual body)& my auto focus bodies as well. This lens is sharp when used at f8, has good contrast & colour saturation(ED glass).

The two big knocks against this lens are at 35mm it is f4.5 which makes the viewfinder dark for focusing & composition if you are working hand held in less than ideal light. The other knock is it's distortion at the wider end which is only noticable if you are shooting a subject with straight vertical or horizontal lines. The consensus is if you shoot at around f8 you would be hard pressed to find any difference between Nikons three wide zooms, 17-35, 18-35 & 20-35. The wedding shooters i know personaly tend to use the 2.8 zooms, Nikon & Canon.

[frank uhlig]

I apoligize for not being a gear head and for thinking of the end product, the picture first. Art first, image first. Striving for mastery of subject and print ...

 

And 80% of a picture is art, vision, composition, patience, the right moment, your eye and visualizaton in your mind... Not your gear at all. (In my experience)

 

 

Hence my original post that there would probably not be a noticable difference in the pictures taken by the two similar lenses, given that composition makes the picture, the light and the view do; BUT NOT f/3.5 OR f/4.5 OR f/2.8, OR 18mm OR 20mm OR F5 OR F65 OR F3 etc.

 

I am also wondering how and why that quoted son of one poster has already been geared/bwashed towards gearheading, and towards material wealth, and its poverty, rather than towards inner artistic expression and self worth. But never mind, really.

 

Go at it; in fact, gear-heading is ultimately useless. Let me know in a few decades how you came out of it, if any did make it out, if any could break the addiction to materials, ever ... And were able to create art and pleasure through their example, teaching, and life.

 

I take that freedom to express an alternate view on phnet freely.

[Ed_Ingold]

ED glass is of questionable value in wide-angle lenses. It has a clear advantage in long-focus lenses, where chromatic aberation is more significant. The 20-35 has a precision-ground aspheric element, which is a decisive design advantage. The lens is sharp, sharp, sharp!

 

Nikon's f/2.8 zoom lenses are the best in their lineup, comparable to their best prime lenses. There are few compromises in either optical or build quality.

 

Is the 18-35/3.5-4.5 good enough? Could be! The highly-extensible and wobbly front element raises some questions, though. A pro who can afford the 20-35 (or 17-35) is likely to have one. In any case, cost and weight are more important factors than the ones posed here.

[r._lafayette]

I was not previously aware of the ED glass being of less significance on wide lenses. Thanks.