According provided by lens Nikon AF NIKKOR 20-35mm 1: 2.8D huge thanks to Nikolay Bezumny.
Nikon AF NIKKOR 20-35mm 1: 2.8D
The Nikon AF NIKKOR 20-35mm 1: 2.8D is Nikon's first wide-angle autofocus zoom lens to be able to 'expand' to a 20mm focal length. This focal length allows you to get a really wide angle of view, which is 94°. Nikon 20-35 / 2.8D, among other things, belongs to the professional line of Nikon Nikkor lenses with excellent build quality. But, unfortunately, NIKKOR 20-35 / 2.8D is not included in the list Nikon NPS.
Prior to the release of the NIKKOR 20-35 / 2.8D, Nikon did not have such lenses, and the Nikon Zoom-Nikkor 25 ~ 50 1: 4 AI versions (1979) and AI-S (1981) and Nikon AF NIKKOR 24-50mm 1: 3.3-4.5 (1987). The legendary Nikon AF NIKKOR 20-35mm 1: 2.8D was introduced in September 1993. By the way, his colleague - Canon Zoom Lens EF 20-35 1: 2.8 L was released exactly 4 years earlier than NIKKOR.
| Review Instance Name | NIKON AF NIKKOR 20-35mm 1: 2.8D 214935 |
| A type | FX, AF, D,IF, ASPHERICALSIC |
| Front Filter Diameter | 77 mm |
| Focal length | 20-35 mm EGF for cameras Nikon DX 30-52.5 mm |
| Zoom ratio | 1.75 x |
| Designed by | for film cameras |
| Number of aperture blades | 9 pieces |
| Tags | aperture, focusing distance in meters and feet, IR marks for 20 mm and 35 mm. The depth of field scale can be further cut out from the instructions and mounted on top of the focus distance scale (Nikon, are you kidding?) |
| Diaphragm | F / 2.8-F / 22 over the entire range of focal lengths |
| MDF | 0.5 m, maximal magnification factor 1: 8.8 |
| The weight | 640 / 585 g |
| Optical design | 14 elements in 11 groups, 1 aspherical element (in the optical diagram, the aspherical element is shown in blue) |
| Lens hood | Nikon HB-8 |
| Manufacturer country | MADE IN JAPAN |
| Period | September 1993 - April 2001 |
| Price | A catalog of modern wide-angle lenses is available see here. |
Nikon AF NIKKOR 20-35mm 1: 2.8D has always been produced without any modifications, but, nevertheless, there are two versions of this lens that differ in their weight. The first versions of the lens weighed 640 grams, but subsequently the lens was lightened to 585 grams; there are no other differences that are visible to the eye between the versions. Nikon 20-35 / 2.8D has always been produced only in Japan.
Nikon AF NIKKOR 20-35mm 1: 2.8D
Nikon 20-35 / 2.8D is assembled very high quality, to the touch it is a lens of old Nikon's hardening. All professional AF and AF-D lenses have this robust design. The focus and zoom ring are rubberized. The thread for the light filter is metal, as is the lens mount. For quick attachment to the camera, you can use the black screw, which serves as a kind of bayonet mount mark.
Nikon 20-35 / 2.8D uses the original Nikon HB-8 plastic lens hood, for installation which has a white mark on the frame of the case. If you set the hood in transport mode, then access to the focus ring will be very limited.
Nikon AF NIKKOR 20-35mm 1: 2.8D, a black screw is visible from the bayonet side
The focus ring rotates only 90 degrees. During auto focus, the ring remains stationary, it cannot be rotated and you can hold the lens by it.
Auto focus very fast, internal type. The lens has a window with a focus distance scale in meters and feet, as well as two tags for working in the infrared spectrum for 20 and 35 mm. The depth of field lens of the lens is missing, but the instructions have its paper counterpart, which can either be cut out and combined with the focus distance scale, or visually remember :). The minimum focusing distance is 50 cm, and for 20-35 mm focal length, as for me, this is very, very much.
The focus mode switch is designed as a ring and uses a metal release button to switch between 'M' and 'A' modes. This switch makes it easy to distinguish Nikon professional from non-professional lenses in the old 'Nikon AF' range. Actually, such a focus mode switch is inconvenient, but still better with it than without it.
Nikon AF NIKKOR 20-35mm 1: 2.8D
When changing the focal length, the front lens of the lens moves and rotates inside the frame of the housing, but due to the successful design, it can be considered that the zoom lens is internal. So, if you install a filter on the lens, then visually the lens will not change its size either during focusing or during a change in focal length.
During a change in focal length, the rear lens also moves.
Tamron SP AF 20-40 1: 2.7-3.5 Aspherical 266D and Nikon AF NIKKOR 20-35mm 1: 2.8D
As befits a professional lens, the Nikon 20-35 / 2.8D uses a nine-blade aperture. The petals are not rounded, and therefore you can easily get star ray effect (it turns out an 18-ray star).
The lens uses large filters with a standard diameter of 77 mm. Typically, this diameter is common to many Nikon professional lenses.
Nikon AF NIKKOR 20-35mm 1: 2.8D
Nikon AF NIKKOR 20-35mm 1: 2.8D features to work with various Nikon cameras
It's important: auto focus with this lens is available only when using him on cameras with built-in motor focusing.
Exact list Nikon DSLR cameras with a built-in focus motor, on which this lens will focus automatically:
- D1, D1h, D1x, D2x, D2xs, D2h, D2hs
- D3, D3x, D3s, D4, D4s, D5, D6
- Df
- D50, D70, D70s, D80, D90
- D7000, D7100, D7200,D7500
- D100, D200, D300, D300s,D500
- D600, D610, D750, D780
- D700, D800,D800E, D810, D810a, D850
- Fujifilm FinePix S1 Pro, S2 Pro, S3 ProS3 Pro UVIR, S5 ProIS Pro
- Kodak DCS PRO 14n, DCS Pro SLR/n
Exact list Nikon DSLR cameras without a built-in focus motor, on which this lens will not focus automatically:
Only auto focus and sound confirmation of focus will not work with these cameras, all other important functions, such as automatic exposure metering and automatic iris control, will work well.
You will find a lot of useful information on the types of cameras and lenses Nikon here.
Of these lenses, only Nikon AF NIKKOR 20-35mm 1: 2.8D and Nikon ED AF Nikkor 18-35mm 1: 3.5-4.5 D IF Aspherical do not have a built-in focusing motor. All subsequent models of these lenses are available in 'AF-S SWM' versions.The lens has a manual aperture ring. To be able to control the value aperture from camera or for automatic installation aperture on modern central control valves, you need to turn the control ring to F / 22 and fix it with a special lever, which is located to the right of the marks aperture. If this is not done, then on a number of cameras, the display will display an error - 'fEE' (ring is not installed aperture) Some cameras having diaphragm rheostatallow you to control the aperture using the ring aperturebut only in metering modes exposure 'M' and 'A'. You can read more about this issue in the section on Non-G Lenses. Ring aperture rotates with clicks, the values F / 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22 are plotted on it. It is impossible to establish an intermediate value between pairs of numbers using the aperture ring. Intermediate values can only be set using the camera menu.
EGF lens for Nikon DX cameras is 30-52.5mm. I don’t see much point in using Nikon AF NIKKOR 20-35mm 1: 2.8D on cropped Nikon cameras. Who is looking for a fast wide-angle zoom for Nikon cameras, I advise you to look away Tokina AT-X 116 PRO SD 11-16mm F2.8 (IF) DX II (second version) or Tokina AT-X 116 PRO SD 11-16mm F2.8 (IF) DX (first version) or Tokina AT-X PRO SD 11-20mm F2.8 (IF) DX.
Nikon AF NIKKOR 20-35mm 1: 2.8D with original Nikon HB-8 blend
There are not so many Nikon Nikkor FX lenses that allow you to shoot at 20 millimeters or less focal length.
Nikkor F for SLR cameras:
- Nikon 14 mm 1: 2.8D AF
- Nikon 16 mm 1: 2.8D Fisheye AF
- Nikon 18 mm 1: 2.8D AF
- Nikon 20 mm 1:2.8 AF
- Nikon 20 mm 1: 2.8D AF
- Nikon 20 mm 1: 1.8G N AF S
- Nikon 8-15 mm 1: 3.5-4.5E Fisheye AF S
- Nikon 14-24 mm 1: 2.8G N AF S
- Nikon 16-35 mm 1: 4G VR N AF S
- Nikon 17-35 mm 1: 2.8D AF S
- Nikon 18-35 mm 1: 3.5-4.5D AF
- Nikon 18-35 mm 1: 3.5-4.5G AF S
- Nikon 20-35 mm 1: 2.8D AF
Nikkor Z for mirrorless cameras:
In fact, Nikon AF NIKKOR 20-35mm 1: 2.8D also deserves the honorable inscriptions 'IF' and 'Aspherical', but at the time of the lens release, marketers had not yet thought of decorating the lens barrel with various mysterious abbreviations :).
Nikon AF NIKKOR 20-35mm 1: 2.8D with original Nikon HB-8 blend
Nikon does not have a direct analogue of such a lens for Nikon DX cropped cameras, there is only a faintly similar Nikon DX AF-S Nikkor 12-24mm 1: 4G ED SWM IF Aspherical. Crop again puts an ultimatum :).
Front lens movement of the Nikon AF NIKKOR 20-35mm 1: 2.8D lens during focal length changes. Left - 20 mm, right - 35 mm.
The lens does not have additional vignetting due to the use of light filters. I used the CITIWIDE ND8 filter 77mm polarization filter and CITIWIDE CPL 77mm.
Despite the fact that the lens has only 1.75 X zoom, theoretically it can be a replacement for four fixed lenses at once: 20 / 2.8, 24 / 2.8, 28 / 2.8 and 35 / 2.8 :)
Nikon AF NIKKOR 20-35mm 1: 2.8D on camera Nikon AF N8008s
The picture with Nikon AF NIKKOR 20-35mm 1: 2.8D is nice. First of all, it is noticeable that the lens has a slight distortion. To be completely honest, as for a zoom lens, this NIKKOR very well conveys straight lines at any focal length. Also, the lens has good contrast, it's a pity, but in the backlight you can’t do without glare, sometimes they occupy a huge part of the shot. With sharpness in the center of the frame, everything is fine on any aperture. At F / 2.8, the angles are very weak, with the cover of the diaphragm sharpness in the corners and along the edge improves.
Sample photo on Nikon AF NIKKOR 20-35mm 1: 2.8D
Source files can download from this link (61 photos in the '.RAW' format, 646 MB). I don’t think the lens will show good pixel-by-pixel sharpness on small pixel cameras such as Nikon D7100, D7200, D810, D800, D800E, D810a, etc.
Nikon AF NIKKOR 20-35mm 1: 2.8D on camera Nikon D90
Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment. Many different photographic equipment can be found on AliExpress.
Results
At one time, the old Nikon AF NIKKOR 20-35mm 1: 2.8D was the dream of a large circle of photographers. But his time slowly passes, giving place to new models with modern technology. Anyway, professional NIKKOR boasts excellent build, fast focusing and good image quality.
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram
Arkady, I understand that the comment is off topic, I just would like to write, somewhere in the comments, I don’t remember where for a long time, one person complained that blurred photos were coming out, you answered him, it seems like this: what if there is at least one sharp photo, the problem is not in the technique. My device washed 3/4 of the pictures (nikon d90) and I thought that the problem was in me until I was tired of it and I did not call the master. As a result, he set everything up for me, it turned out that a fair number of d90xs had autofocus sensors in the factory incorrectly configured and they needed to be adjusted exactly to the carcass. As a result, it turns out that for two years I did not have a camera, but an expensive brick, and very often disappointed me when I tried to shoot an interesting shot on the street, but in the end I got the focus, it is not clear where. Now I often get at least from my hip, even if I don’t aim on the fly. Do not write more than this, do not mislead people, I understand that you are well-intentioned, but you were not right about this particular issue.
And you follow the context of my answers.
I am the very first anonymous author. Then add a warning to the d90 article that many may smear and need adjustment. It is the camera.
Bullshit can happen with any technique.
“I just would like to write, somewhere in the comments, for a long time and I don’t remember where, one person complained that blurry photos come out, you answered him, it seems like this: if there is at least one sharp photo, then the problem is not technique "
And what, Shapoval is now to blame and must immediately jump up and solve your problems with your camera?
Are you lost in this life or what, sympathetic? Your camera is your problem.
Anonymous, asking someone for advice - be prepared that, perhaps, you will not be given the entire list of answers. It is impossible to diagnose anything qualitatively in virtual mode.
In this case, you can only blame yourself ...
I have a d90 and 20 / 2.8D Nikkor at medium focusing distances terribly smears. although on the neighbors - everything is ok!
The camera problem is unambiguous! I think d810 will do better!
I think that wider than 20 mm is no longer necessary for normal photography. further on, such distortions are twisted ... especially the weddings, who shoot at 17 mm and markovniks, a crowd of people: the extreme ones pull their faces out like that! well, do not enter - move away! here on the crop of fifty dollars - for the eyes! I feel in the full frame - 85 will be a staff!
Nope !!! D810 will smear even more on the near, middle and far !!! There will also be added micro-lubricant ... in general, you will take everything to the basket ...
Do not compose about microsmaz on d810.
Yes, for sure ... I give a grudge ... :-)
Not really it is not clear that this is just banter !!!
I have one acquaintance, he filmed for half a year and was surprised: - “What nonsense? Sharpness has disappeared completely! " I looked at him and at the camera and offered to wipe the light filter on the lens, since I always carry a micro-fiber cloth with me. I wiped the filter for a long time, but still mine defeated this filter stained with greasy fingers. The would-be photographer's delight knew no bounds ... he again got sharp pictures ... :-D
I also had micro-lubricants on the d70s! cured by reducing shutter speed and raising the sensitivity! what in d810 - like mud!
and the focus on 20 / 2.8d is blurred by the camera: I tried it on d800 - everything is ok. and it's not about alignment! I read somewhere that shiriks periodically encounter a problem with focusing. or the sensors of some cameras “do not like” the width. apparently too small and low-contrast objects for the sensors. shirik is also fast.
and with the focus button held down, you move the camera - it will catch what the thread is. but at a close (0,5 m) distance - everything is perfect. gets into focus.
And where to find such a master? Thanks.
Cool. I have long wanted to see and read about this, but no one shared))) if someone else had fitted 17-35))
Arkady, would you like such a lens for banquets there or other weddings?
I would not refuse.
Nikon, are you kidding?
Is this Mezigirya?
Part of the photo - yes, Mezhyhirya.
Mega-fat :)))
Just pick up shirik.
Thanks for the review.
Arkady, is the drawing similar to 80-200 AF / D? Does he paint in the same way?
Not so, but as for shirka, not everything is so bad. In an Internet trillion examples, see for yourself.
better fix it! zooms - for those who do not feel the difference!
Yes, I look at Nikkor 20mm 2.8 too.
It's just that 80-200 is very much like it. Suddenly I thought, and this one also displays details just as wonderful.
Deliver such collective farm tales ..)
Well, what will he do with a fix? Yes, and with a shirka ..
Kick out your tongue and run kilometers through the area in search of the desired angle where normal people twisted the ring and immediately got the desired angle ..
Wide lenses, first of all, are used for close range with an interesting distorted perspective, and not in order to fit into the frame as much as possible. That is precisely their value. So, there’s just no need to run anywhere.
Well, with close distances this 20-35 has big problems :)
Yes, MDF at 50cm is certainly a bit much.
Here is a bouquet of carnations, a distance of about 5cm. Soligor 17mm, f / 3.5.
* I made a mistake, the distance to the flowers is 10-15 cm.
These "ring spinners" are filming with regular low-quality whales all their lives and are surprised: the composition seems to be correct, and the lighting, and the horizon is not overwhelmed - and the photo is garbage…. bida ... bida ...
No exaggeration (or rather, trying to justify these tales above)
With the advent of graphic editors and corrections for graphic images, glass is no longer so important - you can fix, add or remove whatever your heart desires
So do not exaggerate, otherwise this belief in stories of yours may seem clever only for grandmothers at the entrance, tk. people who understand this understand that your stereotype is complete nonsense.
Photoshop can fix everything except the color blindness of skin tones and the curvature of “professional photographers”. Only the creation of Samuel Colt will help here ...
Here the distortion went (that means I was right in my post, since the opponents had to turn to juggling the facts)
I quote the source - "and the composition is correct, and the lighting, and the horizon is not overwhelmed"
Hurried and sp_ymav bobber, huh? ))))
Do not rush, otherwise you look silly)
Well, why are you guiding the zooms in vain? Often a good shot can be captured from a single point. Either there is no other possibility, or the idea is lost. And then either you have a set of good wide-angle fixes (expensive), or a good wide-angle zoom with a magnification of no more than 3 (also expensive, but cheaper). One fix is definitely not enough, no matter how fast you are. As an option - buy the widest-angle fix, and then scribble, scribble and scribble ... and tell everyone that zooms are evil. :)
For the price, this used lens is comparable to the new Tokina 16-28 f / 2.8.
I suspect Tokina will be better.
Yes. Nikon glasses are overpriced at all.
Moreover, the quality is really behind the price.
Excuse me please, but this is “bullshit”. In this expression, objectivity = 0 :) And it is a little inappropriate to compare with Tokina 16-28 (relative to the previous speaker).
On a subject - a great lens!
Alexander, what is the delusional comparison then? What is Tokina intended for crop? So the majority of those who read this comment have dx carcasses. And on the crop focal Tokins will be more interesting. And it is still unknown where and in what conditions this Nikkor managed to visit, and there will be no guarantee for Tokin.
Actually, this Tokina is for the full frame. Ken Rockwell writes that the quality is not inferior to Nikon 14-28.
Oh, I clicked it: I looked 12-28 ...
... I mean, it is not inferior to the Nikon 14-24mm AFS f / 2.8 G ED.
for a full frame - worse.
Any Tokina will ALWAYS be worse than the old, iron Nikkor! About the so-called. new Nikkors - I’m not saying… many complain, say that Nikon has already “started to juggle” lately. I don’t want to believe this statement, but the spread of their enterprises in Asia has ruined their reputation. And about my statement - this is verified by 40 years of photographic experience. Buy high-quality iron optics - they are not as expensive as modern plastic ones, but they will remain for your grandchildren too. And don't worry about charts, tables, crops, full frames, but shoot! Shoot a lot! Only with practice comes mastery.
I agree with every word you say - absolutely correct statement !!!
... only you will buy Tokin like a pig in a poke, not knowing what will come across. And this “old man” will give odds to many modern ones for a long time, with plastic cases and, oh, God, the same bayonets. And it doesn't matter at all that the glasses of such plastic products are calculated with the help of computers, often undeservedly promoted (just to be sold!). One awkward movement (anything can happen on shooting!) And such a lens crumbles into parts before your very eyes ...
Thank you
Necessary thing..
Need to think about buying
Does it alone hurt me to look at a picture with 20mm? The distortion and angles are just creepy. Do all zoom zooms have that?
Probably you alone. 20-35 has excellent geometry, better than the new 17-35 and 16-35.
So I will continue to use fixes.
Eyes are more expensive.
Well done! It was imperative, necessary to yell to everyone what an Alfazamets you are.
And how did you remake the 20th Flektogon under Nikon, if not a secret? Or doesn’t it go beyond the room?
And I did not remake. Why should I remake anything on Nikon?
Likely and put it on the crop
Arkady! Thanks so much for the review.
As always informative and to the point. Good test photos.
I read it with pleasure, despite the fact that for several years now I have been shooting with the Nikon 16-35mm f / 4G ED AF-S VR Nikkor wide-angle zoom, which is inferior to the hero of the review only in aperture ratio, and in all other respects it is superior, especially in ergonomics, dust-moisture protection, and from the picture too ...
Some comments are just pleasing ... it's a pity that most people who are not familiar with photographic equipment will not understand the comic nature of some comments, otherwise it would be possible to send Zadornov ... :-)
Such experts are always unmeasured. Adequate people units. They simply do not visit such resources and do not suffer hehe..ey.
17-35 / f2.8 gives a more juicy picture .. but also costs more ..
I've been using 20-35 for a year already - I'm generally satisfied.
PS and the stars are really cool
I'm sick of already choosing a width on the D600. What do you think Nikon 18-35mm 1: 3.5-4.5G would be a good choice? What are his cons? I do not consider a smaller aperture and lack of a stub as special minuses.
They say Tokina 20-35 1: 3.5-4.5 is better than Nikon's with a similar aperture. It costs ridiculous money, it’s only difficult to find. Here Tokina 20-35 1: 2.8 softit and costs more.
Thanks a lot for the tip!
He looked, read foreign sources. This Tokina is in some ways better, in some ways on par with the old Nikon D-glasses. But the new ones, G-type, easily do it. True, they cost 3-4 times more expensive for used. In any case, thank you, maybe it will turn up to try it.
Then the same Tokin 16-28 1: 2.8 Pro FX. A new one is cheaper, but only filters are not worn.
I, too, have been tormented by the choice of a modern style for the last time.
... It's the same as asking which woman you like best - blonde or brunette. Take this device, put it on YOUR camera, evaluate it comprehensively, shoot test shots and ... make a decision!
Arkady, please review nikon 17-35 2.8 and 20 1.8g.
I think which one to take for reporting on the d750. The first held in his hands, like a good glass, but still lathers in the open. And he didn’t hold the second one in his hands, but according to the reviews of foreign testers he is flawless with an open 1.8!
don't worry and buy af-s 14-24 2.8g N for your report ... does not wash at all, very fast and reliable, but expensive
Not suitable for price and defenseless lens 14-24.
So after all, reviews are only on the technique that kind people send. If not sent, then there will be no review.
... I shoot a lot of reports. But, believe me, I NEVER took pictures on an open relative aperture. I know well what it is fraught with. Any lens, released by manufacturers hitherto in the world, works mediocre at the “open hole”. Why, tell me, look for a black cat in a dark room?
An excellent lens of the old line of Nikkor professional glass - 20-35, 35-70, 80-200….
From the category "Musthave" for those who understand and appreciate the "picture" and all its components
(color rendering, volume, contrast, etc.) It has excellent geometry ... Of the minuses, it is rare and quite expensive, but it's worth it ...
It is not clear what “new models with modern technologies” Arkady means, but he generally likes to joke ...
35-70 on your list is clearly superfluous.
The width is 35mm, and instead of 70mm, there is 80 on the telephoto.
If you really want to, it is better to replace 50 1.8D.
I don’t know ... I have both 35-70 and 5 // 1.8D 50 I DO NOT USE ... 35-70 (if the lens is in good condition) the picture is more interesting.
It is not.
35-70 2.8 should be missed in the first place. This is a “rubber fifty” with a soulful picture, excellent sharpness and, “festive boke” (s).
He can do portraits perfectly and can even almost macro.
When it happens that I don’t know what to take from a gentleman's set - 14, 20-35, 35-70, 80-200, 50 1.8, 50 1.4, 105 2.5, 135, and it’s lazy to drag, then 35-70 2.8 + 105 2.5 + a pair of AF-D macro rings solve 97% of problems.
20-35 2.8 and 50 1.8 are just the least I use. 20-35 is large and heavy, and 35-70 for convenience and picture tears 50 1.8 like a dingy rag.
It all depends on what you are shooting. If this is purely tourism, then I cover the middle of the range with some fifty dollars just or 35 (on the crop), and so - 10-18, 55-250 change if necessary. It's 16-35, 70-300 in full frame, roughly speaking. And if these are full-length portraits of the fashion type, then there are just 17-55 the most popular (35-70 in your case). But usually I know in advance what I will be shooting - nature-sights or people. At 35-70, there will be no close-ups that give an idea of scale, no architecture, no details that cannot be reached. This is purely "Helen with face # 3 and pose # 2 with interchangeable backdrops in the form of pyramids, bushes and waterfalls."
"And portraits and macro" and everything else, if you are lucky to find mold-free :-D
> "When it happens that I don't know what to take from a gentleman's set"
That is taken 24-120 / 4G or 24-105 / 4 L IS (+ 70-200 / 4 L IS)
Как вариант 35-70/2.8+70-210/4.
35-70 / 2.8 is getting smaller every year in good condition. In addition to fungus / mold, the ram-type construct itself also wears out. Trumbo is a good topic and in the report it is super. But I repeat, every year there are fewer of them.
There is also such a moment - many read articles about the “legendary nature” of old high-power zoom, and then buy and think that they were deceived.
Most of the legendary high-aperture zooms are problem lenses that can ruin your mood and empty your wallet.
I'm talking about Nikkor 35-70 / 2.8, 28-70 / 2.8. Tokina 28-70 / 2.6-2.8, 28-80 / 2.8, Canon 28-70 / 2.8L (possibly Tamron 28-75 / 2.8 heard the statement about unreliable design and Tamron lenses are not legendary, with the exception of 28-105 / 2.8) ... It seems that the only objects of those years that have avoided stories with fungus, mold, laminated bonding of lenses in the lens unit, failing motors are Sigma lenses. Which are famous for their bad focus.
Good afternoon!
Friends, I can’t come to a final decision and ask for your advice. I choose between this glass - Nikkor AF 20-35 mm f2.8D and Nikkor AF 20mm f2.8D. There are very few comparisons, and the range of opinions is very large. I ask for advice from the pros who have the practice of working with both glasses.
Yes, I’ll add about my carcass: Nikon DF. It is so vintage, with a full matrix (large grain 18 megapixels) and a screwdriver.
Eugene how did your search end?
I took Nikkor AF 20-35 mm f2.8D. I use for half a year.
Colleagues, does focusing on this lens go astray during focus drifting?
I answer myself - practically does not go astray, that is, in fact, the lens is parfocal.
Thank you so much for this review! So I became the proud owner of this glass :) I was lucky to find in a new state. I can say that the lens is simply gorgeous! In conjunction with DF covers 80% of the range I need. Thanks to Arkady again! Long years of happy life and health!
If possible, tell me where you can find the price level. I’ve been looking for about a month, but I can’t find a normal copy.
If the camera is D600 and higher and you expect to get a decent image, don't stop. When comparing it with the Tokina 16-28, Nikkor 14-24, Tamron 15-30 VC, you will be disappointed by the blurriness of the corners, the lack of contrast in the slightest bright side light, and nothing good can be said about the AF operation at the wide end in poorly lit rooms. The permanently semi-closed working diaphragm partially helps but does not please either. After reading a couple of complimentary reviews from the past, I spent a lot of time looking for a worthy copy in the 35-70 /2,8 kit. Over time, disappointed, after testing the Tamron 15-30 / 2,8 I literally regained my sight and said goodbye to all the glass of the last century. In addition, having a light fix 85mm in your bag, you can positively solve any problems and at any time of the day.
It makes sense to take it when you need to shoot closed. My best mountain shots from 1997-2010 were taken with this zoom. But apertures 5,6-16 - there was no need to shoot at 2.8-4.0. By the way, 35-70 2.8 is also pretty bad on open - 35-70 f3.5 Ai-s is noticeably better, soft only 70 mm.
Hello! Yesterday I bought myself one). I was looking for a long time ... .. and not in vain.)))) Super-duper lens. Now I have 20-35 and 35-70 2.8d.))). The idiot's dream has come true)))).
Congratulations on your purchase. And to which camera did you actually buy? I myself stand before the choice is wide. It will be the first to Nikon d700. I wanted this one too, but there is no time to choose for a long time. I am faced with the choice of Nikon 18-35 d or tokina 20-35 2.8pro
Don't buy 18-35 D, up to aperture 8 it just sucks ... And TOkin, in comparison, is just a super-duper lens and by the way costs the same, about ...
I have NIKON D3 and NIKON D3S. The glasses are just great. I don't even think about new optics. I also bought a Tamron 70-210 with a stub the first version, a very decent glass.
Used this lens on the nikon D300s, often rescued with its universal focal lens. After purchasing the D610 and Nikon, the 24-70 / 2,8G gladly sold it and forgot about its center of focus spot on a fully open one. Can a copy of this or film lenses merge into complete new models? For many of my friends and acquaintances, friendship with zooms like 20-35,35-70 quickly ended after acquiring a worthy FX camera, corresponding to their occupation.
No, this is not a defect at all. That is the norm for any 20-35 of those years. Canon 20-35, 17-35, 16-35 (1st version) - the same. This Nikkor 20-35 becomes sharp on the field only at 8-11. At the same time, surprisingly, even at 11, diffraction does not "break" the picture. I do not know why. And if you want to have sharpness in the corners, even at 4-5,6 - take the AI fixes 24/2 and 28/2 - they are great. Or, if you don’t mind the money, modern plastic fixes - optically, they are fantastic at all. But dear ones are terribly. I think these prices are unjustified.
Surprisingly, in China a given 20-35 / 2.8D costs the same as a 17-35 / 2.8D on the used market. The latter clearly outperforms the former in literally everything ...
I found the answer to my own question why this lens is still appreciated - the fact is that all glasses in it are actually made of real high-quality optical glass, but in the 17-35 / 2.8 lens Nikon began to install two glasses of their plastic, the so-called hybrid aspherical. In theory, this lens will last longer in terms of maintaining its performance. By installing plastics in lenses, manufacturers catch two birds with one stone - they reduce the cost of production (by its non-retail cost, that is, increase their profits!), And also reduce the real life cycle of the lens. Check out the new lenses from Canon, the so-called. STM, they no longer weigh anything, and they are small, and the performance characteristics seem to be quite good, but apparently there are no glasses there for a long time, and after the end of the warranty period they will break or lose sharpness, or other problems will appear ...
Yes. You are absolutely right. Sigmas of the 2000s with plastic aspherics are already losing contrast, although they were not originally so soapy - dull plastic shit!
I understand that there are different classes, but judging by the reviews, the 16-35 F4 gives a richer picture and ringing. Or so it seems to me?
Thinking to buy this one for myself or to save up for 16-35? The price is 2 times.
If you give examples of photographs, then you must definitely give something portrait. Regular photos - they look like regular photos and you will not notice any contrast or sharpness. You can see by a person whether there is a skin texture, whether there is sharpness in the hair and in the eyebrows - there is a whole set of different objects with different contrast in sharpness.
Now with regard to the lens itself. Yes, it is not hyper-sharp if you want to frame the resulting photo afterwards. But Sharpness is acceptable. The texture of the skin can be noticed, but most of all it is greatly softened, which makes the transfer of the skin very softer (and there is a plus here), Hair is transferred separately - a hair from a hair - but it is clear that it is soft. The most important thing is the following.
The first important thing is that the lens blurs the background well, not super, as it were at 1,4 - but good. If you understand that at 1,4 you will close the aperture to get a sharp object, then it is acceptable.
Second, the lens is old and at one time referred to as a hyper-wide with a zoom - therefore, there may be problems with the precise alignment of the focus of your camera.
Comrades photographers, tell me I don't know where you can buy this lens, what websites can there be (except for ebay)? I don’t find a normal option in Russia. Or maybe someone has an unnecessary one, let me know.
Why is ebay not happy with it? In my opinion, it is a very excellent option to buy a lens in good condition, rare in our area. I buy there, if I don’t find it in our country.