This is one of my 3 lightweight Nikon lenses that I carry. The others are the 24-85G and the 70-300 AF-P. All 3 give me tack sharp images at a fraction of the cost and weight of the pro lenses.
Hi James, I totally agree with your comments on the 18-35G. Its a great value FX lens that produces excellent quality images. I have had mine on a D810 for about 2 years now and have had no troubles. I get a little CA in some shots but it is easily removed. The 16-35VR although a little cheaper these days is still markedly more expensive than the 18-35 here in Oz. If someone really needs the extra width VR and weather sealing go for the 16-35 but I know I'll be sticking with my 18-35 for some time to come. I like your down to earth review style that I am sure resonates with a lot of us enthusiast photographers. Great vlog that will be valuable information for some Nikon shooters!
Great review James. Informative, concise, real world, no graphs, charts, overload of technical data just good old hands on and eyes through the lens field experience. Thanx!
I too have used this lens for 5 years. after 1000's of images it never disappoints. sharp corner to corner at F8-11. Light too. Completely agree with your review. You were spot on! I highly recommend it!
I shoot architecture and interior design and this lens is the best of all Nikon wide angle lenses including 14-24 because with some hostile lighting situations this lens doesn't give me a flare unlike the 14-24, that doesn't handle artificial lights very well directed at it. Superb lens!
I agree 100% James. I also purchased this lens for the same reasons you stated. I have absolutely no regrets !!! When you first hold it in your hands it does feel like you may be making a mistake. After looking at the images it is most capable of producing, you pat yourself on the back and feel like a genius...
Yep on first impressions it definitely does feel a bit 'budget' but it really performs fantastically. I honestly wouldn't even go for the 16-35 if it was the same price. Cheers Frank
Great review James!!....I am purchasing this lens from facebook marketplace for $250....your review sealed the deal.....also just subscribed,,,Thank You!!
Agree with your review totally...I chose this lens rather than the 16-35 not because of price but because of performance and compactness which I consider my priorities for tripod landscape photography. Other technical reviews confirm its sharpness which at some apertures outperforms the f 2.8. This lens for me is indispensable. Thanks for your review👍
Totally agree Nick. I feel people automatically assume it's worse than the 16-35 purely on price but I really don't feel its the case. The weight difference of over 300g is absolutely huge. For me that's a massive benefit.
This lens is also a mainstay of my kit. Light, cheap and sharp! I also own the Nikon 14-24 F2.8 and it usually stays in the bag, and quite often gets left at home due to its hefty weight!
Great video James, looks like a very good lens, and I see you captured one of my favourite images you have taken with it, the long exposure beach shot 😊
Thanks for this James - I'm seriously considering this lens to compliment my 24-120 and 70-200. I'm looking for something just a touch wider and this would fit the ticket perfectly. I like the specs, the weight and the optics - and the price is great too! Keep up the great videos!
Hello James , it's the first vidéo i see from tout Channel and i could say it's à great vidéo. I'm french and i ve got a pour english level 😋. You speak very well and slowly so i understand all what you say . I'm looking for a wide angle for my D850 . And sûre it was this one Lens i'll buying . Thanks for your review. And i'm looking for your others vidéos 👍👍👍. Fred 🤗😷
As an owner, your review is right on! Like you, budget was my main concern. Replaced the older 18-35D model with the "G". Older zoom worked fine on my crop sensor camera, but left something to be desired on full frame. Find that 18mm is plenty wide for my needs.
I love my Nikon 14-24 f2.8 but I am always anxious to bring it during a long travel since the front element is huge and bulbuous. However, I am looking at this lens and heard about the performance, sharpness and of course the weight and size and now you sold me on this. I am getting one! 😁
Can I ask you how you like this lens vs the 14-24 as I too have the same concerns about its front end glass. I just got the 14-24 on sale new. It is a bit big but how do you feel it performs overall. Thanks
Good to get these older lenses before they disappear under the onslaught of the Nikon Z system lenses that cost more than twice as much. I got this lens as an alternative for my D610 (that I still use)that normally sports an AF-S 24-120 VR F4. Both these lenses are massively under rated by the photographic snob class. When considering back in the day, F32 was considered to be a fast piece of kit, F3.5 - F4.5 seems brilliantly fast. Also those variable F numbers are only one third of a stop up and down of F4 anyway; it’s essentially F4. By using decent camera technique, I have been impressed by the sharpness of images of this lens and its general usability, as it doesn’t weigh a tonne. Well done James, nice to see someone cutting through the commercial marketing BS.
Just ordered a used one in and looking forward to using. We have the 14.- 24 that is excellent but it is good to have options depending on the gig! This lens came highly recommended by other professionals so would also recommend, not just because it costs less!
Thanks for this review I’ve been considering a lightweight wide angle lens to use with my D850 and you have answered all my questions regarding suitability.
XXX Darius it’s very very sharp, some distortion at 18. Can be noticed on flat horizon/seascapes. Most distortion can be removed in lr. A fantastic lightweight lens
I have used this lens with my D 800E and later my D 850 and it is one of my most productive lenses by far. I'm sure that there are people who need VR for their shooting but most of my use of lenses in this range are used on a tripod with the mirror locked up or at least exposure delay on so VR is a non issue. I virtually never use it wide open, almost always at f11 or f 16 so its wide open performance is also a non issue. It's light, affordable, durable and produces good images. I agree that there are times I wish it was wider, 16 would be plenty but I'm not willing to give up the sharpness, pay they extra money or carry the extra weight of the 16-35 or the 14-24 (I use polarizers too much to even consider that bulbous monstrosity!)
Hi James, I think that the the fact the price difference has narrowed quite considerably between your lens and the 16-35mm F/4 VR, It's a no brainer to opt for the 16-35 at this time - Weather Sealing / Wider Angle Of View / VR (Not that I use it much either but handy) Fixed Aperture / Nano Coating / Overall Sharpness etc. makes it a more appealing lens at this price range, not to mention that using this lens on a 45mp camera will show up any resolution flaws, I have had the 16-35 since it first came out and have used it with my D3 / D800 and now my D850 and like you It's never let me down, just my humble opinion, keep up the good work.
Cheers Stuart. I certainly think that the narrowing in price between the lens makes the case for the 16-35 quite compelling now. However I really do value the weight difference of 300g. That is pretty much the weight saving in going mirrorless. I think both are really strong options, Nikon full frame shooters are blessed with some fantastic wide angle options 👍
Great video James and just what I was after. I’m going from a d850 to a Z6 and wanted to look at this lens. The fact you are comparing it to the 16-35mm f4 is great cause that’s what I’m also selling. Many thanks
I love this lens. I've had it for years. It's way sharper than i thought it would be. The only reason i upgrade to the 14-24mm f2.8G is because i needed wider for real estate. I've been using the 14-24 for a while now and while it is wider the 18-35 is a LOT sharper. If this lens was a 14-35 f3.4.5 i would sell my 14-24 all day. It's SUPER light and very small for it's focal range. It's friggin great.
Good review James, looks like a nice lens, I did look at it when I went from the crop to full frame set up but ended up with the 16-35 because I really wanted the extra 2mm at the wide end (I would have loved 14mm but rejected the 14-24 on the basis of cost, weight and the need to buy the 150mm filter system for it). Thanks for sharing
Great review - thank you. I have this lens and have got an enormous respect for it. It is the sharpest lens I own just keeps on creating wonderful landscapes on my D600 and D810. Get it over the much more expensive and heavier 16-35mm.
For my Nikon D850, I was willing to spend the extra money for the Nikkor 16-35mm; however, when I spent the money for the D850, my goal was best glass for best pictures......simple. DxO Mark says that the sharpness on the 18-35mm was greater than the 16-35mm. Therefore, I purchased the 18-35mm; simple choice. This lens is SHARP and light.
Yeah it really is superb. The 300g difference in weight is a huge benefit. That's pretty much the weight difference between the d850 and z7 (I.e dslr to mirrorless)!
100% percent agree, also have one the last 4 years. if not happy w variable aperture buy a 24mm G prime for same price, but more fun w 18-35 G; ie events.
good to note too that part of why the 16-35 is heavier is because of the VR. Depending on your landscape style, if you're going to be mounting on a tripod, the cost of VR is pretty much a waste, both monetary and weight wise. Vr is only really useful if you're the type to hand hold on generally still objects, especially at this wide angle focal length. If im indoor photographing moving people for example, i'm going to need a shutter of at least 125, by which time vr is arguably rendered pointless for a focal length of merely 35mm unless you have a disability that prevents a somewhat steady hand. i too had this lens that served me well, but i've since moved to crop sensor (the reverse of most people lol), but still have my old full frame as a secondary back up.
@@JamesBrewphoto I was looking to buy a wide angle lens, and it gave me more food for thoughts. It's easy to read specs, but it better to listen to real life experience.
Always liked your reviews James. One thing I cant hack is people "reviewing" things they've had for 6 hours, just doesn't make sense :) Looks like a good lens option if I ever go down the FF-path.Thanks for sharing your thoughts mate!
Cheers! Haha yeah the vast majority of reviews on RU-vid are not underpinned by actual real understanding or experience. 5 years gives me a reasonable understanding... I hope 😂😂
Extremely helpful and informative review! Thanks for your efforts! Your Nikon 18-35 incidentally has been discontinued, according to the UK Amazon hyperlink. (no U.S. pricing, no problem though) (I did subscribe and gave you an emphatic thumbs up!)
Don't have one so can't really comment. The widest that I have on my D800 is a 24 f2.8 D lens which has no VR but since I like you use a tripod, makes no difference. I always forget to switch off the VR on my D7200 lens' - so it's a pain but the mistake is more forgiving than using Canon gear, I'm told? I have a 10-20 sigma for the said D7200 but distorts too much for my style of photography. Doubt if I'll buy a full frame equivalent! If it works for you James. great 👍
Cheers Eltin! Yeah I feel people can get really funny when it comes to gear. I think it if works well for the individual, great, no matter how cheap it is 👍
I also have used this lens professionally for many years, and agree with the review. A new wrinkle is the Z system with IBIS; now this lens is upgraded to VR capable shooting. This glass is a perfect, modestly priced alternative to the Z series superwide, works flawlessly with it. If you have F and Z mount bodies like I do, it is logical choice. Quality files, weighs what the 14-30 does, has 77mm (not 82mm like Z) filters. Yesss, it's not as wide Virginia. No flourine coatings. Last gen kinda quiet AF, vs. current Z almost silent AF. But clean copies can be purchased used for 1/3 the price of current Z superwide for performance that exceeds most photographers' cameras and abilities. If you really need the latest, get out another $900. Otherwise be happy with a screamin' Nikkor value. A classic. (Note - avoid the earlier ED version 18-35mm Nikkor, significantly worse performance for not less used dollars).
James, what is the filter system you are using, looks useful! Weather seal can be checked by looking if it has a rubber seal on the mount! Just received one of these from a Nikon dealer, mint condition used, terrific lens, highly recommended.
Thanks James for this review. It was interesting for me, cause I own 16-35 f4VR. Have to say, that already two years this lens serves me great in winter and wet autumn seasons conditions. Yes, 16-35 is a bit heavy but performs awesome, and VR has saved me in different low light conditions. There is nothing to complain about at all :) Nikkor did a great job for landscapers, interior and narrow street fotografers particular in low light conditions going down to 1/15th sek without using tripod.
Thanks for the review! Very precise. I would like to ask you about the filters you use. Could you suggest a few good filters for landscape photography?
Great review James, Ive noticed you are also using a 24 70 f2.8. I was just curious if you replaced the 18 35 or added the 24 70 to your collection. I was considering the 24 70 but am now leaning more towards the 18 35 for weight reasons. Would really trust your take on this :)
Thank you! I still have both of these lenses. I rate both very highly. The 18-35 is very light and excels for wide angle shooting, whilst the 24-70 is great for astro, low light shooting and covers the standard shooting focal lengths nicely. The 24-70 is the more versatile of the two but is heavier and more expensive.
Is it the same as the D version, internally? Meaning the glass and elements groupings. Many Nikons are just newer versions of the old. If so then the D version would be a bargain.
I don't know but from what I have seen the performance of the D version is absolutely inferior to the G version. I'd stay well clear of the D personally 👍
Did a quickie Google search and came up with this link.... cdn.photographylife.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Nikon-18-35mm-AF-S-vs-AF-D-Lens-Construction.png The G was completely redesigned from the D. (You'll see it also if you go to Nikon's Japan corporate web site). Note re. the video, Super Integrated Coating has been around for Nikon since the 1990s and I'm pretty sure that isn't really what's delivering the improvement over the D.
Thanks! Good question I'm not actually sure but there will probably be some technical tests online which confirm that. I usually shoot around f8 to f11 👍
I do have some but don't use them now. I used to do more handhold shooting where uv filters are handy to protect the glass. But for tripod landscape shooting I find they are just unessesary. Thanks for watching 🙏
"the obsolete d version." you know those lenses that were actually made out of metal and had a physical aperture ring? I'm so glad we now have cheaply made in Thailand plastic lenses without aperture rings, removing the backwards compatibility that has made nikon great. this lens is the same optically as its cheaper d equivalent but more expensive
Dropped mine (loved it) and it smashed into a hundred pieces .. although the D3s body it was on barely yawned... There's a lot to be said for build quality.. and of course not dropping your gear... doh !
Why do you consider AF-D lenses obsolete? Nothing in the G series touches the 180mm f2.8 AF-D, the 135mm f:2 DC Nikkor is also hard to touch and the two together cost me $1300 US. For the automatic functions of my 850 yes they don't interface, but that certainly doesn't make them obsolete.
@@JamesBrewphoto Agreed. Many other Nikkor D series are absolutely valid choices still. Indeed, many older Nikkor AI and AIS lenses remain brilliant choices.
Very interesting review will I bought the lens but I just don't know how to use it to get maximum benefits I am also into landscape I have the Nikon d610
Now all I have to do is get my d610 to take shop crisp landscape photos from corner to corner like you do with yours although you have an 850 and I have a d610 so I don't know that I can get my corner to corner sharp like you do
@@mjmjersey the lens plays a far bigger role in image sharpness then the camera. So if you use the right techniques there is no reason why you can't get great results out of the d610 👍
Hello James, Would this lens work with a Nikon D5300 , Crop sensor, I was thinking of purchasing one, I thought I ask you on your comments, Thank You, Dave Ice
It is between f3.5 and f4 from 18 - 29mm. Which makes it faster than the 16 -35mm at those focal length. right? ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-zHa2L_8ds0o.html
@@JamesBrewphoto I disagree as I use one and it's my primary lens and I consistently get beautiful shots with it. Calling a lens like that obsolete gives others the idea that it's garbage and and that's just very very far from the truth.
I consider it a cheap and light option. It's suited for someone who loves landscape and dones't want to spend thousand pounds in a used nikon 14-24 f2.8.
I don't find it's an issue at all for landscape photography where I'm rarely ever shooting below f8. For other forms of photography, definitely an issue. Thanks for watching Rob👍
@@JamesBrewphoto i understand but somehow i associate the mix aperture with a lower quality lens. you tend to see this on lower end DX glass. as i own a D850 too i prefer primes over zooms or zooms with a fixed aperture. do like your channel hence the sub. maybe one day ill be as good in video/story telling as you.
