Nikon AF-S FX NIKKOR 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED Zoom Lens with Auto Focus for Nikon DSLR Cameras

First, let me say I've been researching and even testing wide angle lenses for the FX (full frame) format. My stipulations hunting for a new wide angle were: it had to accept filters, it had to have acceptable to excellent optics, and it had to be affordable (had to be under 1K). I am a serious amateur and certainly want decent glass but can't justify $2K. Two pluses would be that it was constant aperture (f/4 or f/2.8) and great build quality. I have looked at the Tokina 16-28 and haven't tried it, as it accepts no filters. Most of Nikons are too expensive as they are well over $1K. I like Tokina as I have the excellent f/2.8 11-16mm ATX lens for DX, and have taken some nice pictures with it. I have used it on my Nikon D90 and tried it on my D700. I can use it at 16mm as a prime, but it isn't that useful and the corners degrade somewhat. I was looking for the equivalent in FX format. I purchased and tried the Tokina f/4 17-35mm. I had high hopes because the reviews were decent. The lens, at least my copy was not. It was horribly mushy at the corners, and just didn't seem like it could get sharp even stopped down. Back to Amazon it went. Eureka! after performing more Google and Amazon research, I found this recently released (in March 2013) wide angle "cheap" ($750-ish) lens by Nikon. The AF-S 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED Nikkor lens. With beautiful reviews. Can it be? Can this lens actually meet my needs and be as good as some folks say? I had to find out for myself and order this lens from Amazon! After only having this lens for a day, and taking a few snapshots around the house, I can say this lens in optical quality IMO way surpasses the Tokina f/4 17-35mm I have tried. It is very sharp, with not much distortion, no vignetting, no glare (even shooting in the sunlight) or CA that I could tell so far. It is made of plastic and is pretty light, so Tokina build quality easily surpasses it on "looks and feel"... Although the Nikon focus and zoom rings are nice and smooth and well damped. Most of the lenses today are plastic unless you buy a $$$ professional or older lens type. between 18mm and 20mm the aperture is f/3.5 - 3.8, which is low-light enough for those interior and dark pictures. At f/8 and above this lens is perfect for those landscape pictures. And it takes 77mm filters, which is a very common size especially for the "pro series" of lenses and my old Tokina 11-16mm. What is there not to like?? Maybe build quality if you get hung up on plastic (although the plastic isn't "cheap" feeling like some thord-party lenses) or constant f/2.8 aperture (which I don't believe you need in a WA lens). This lens starts at 3.5 at the wide end, so if you primarily shoot around there you aren't missing too much and can still shoot inside and in the dark with a little bump in the ISO. I would highly recommend this lens to anyone looking for a Wide Angle lens on FX and being able to use filters. I think it is a great value with excellent image quality. At 18mm-35mm, this lens is functionality equivalent to a DX 12-24mm WA lens. Like another reviewer here said, "Run, Do Not Walk, to buy this lens"! In the comments section I posted a link to a set of pics that were shot with this lens. I will add to these as time and travel allow. Please ignore the composition or horrible subject matters ;-) . A number of these will be test shots.

Every review should have some background on the reviewer in order to give perspective, so here I go. I judge all of my tools by what they can do for me based on my shooting style and how much enjoyment they provide. For me, any lens is a package of quality and convenience. The perfect lens does not exist. I want sharp images, but don't want to wear myself down carrying what is typically considered the best glass. From a purely photographic standpoint, my standard is the 70-200 VR II. While I absolutely love this lens, it is a monster to carry around, especially when hiking. Consequently, I often leave it behind. In my quest for FX wide angle, I have experimented with a variety of primes ranging from Nikon 20mm, 24mm and Zeiss 18 mm. All great lenses but I miss the zoom so I rented the 14-24. Beautiful lens but not so good that I want to lug it around all day. Enter the 18-35G. Although I have had it for a short period of time, I am already falling in love with it. The image quality is excellent as are the sharpness and color rendition. IN my early use I have found the auto focus to be very quick, silent and accurate. Hunting in only dark areas. I normally don't pixel peep so I will leave that detailed analysis to others. This lens is quite sharp for my landscapes when I am usually not shooting wide open. On my D7000 I have used the Sigma 10-20, Nikon 10-24 and Nikon 16-85. All very good lenses. I still consider the 18-35 G to be a step above these. It is an extremely light lens. No, it is not built like a tank, nor does it handle like one. Although it will be used mainly on a tripod, I find it comfortable to hold up and shoot as it balances very well on a D600. Yes it is mainly plastic, that is why it is so light. There is a trade off which I accept. The zoom ring is solid and the lens does not extend when zooming. The diameter increases as you go away from the camera so it is very easy to locate the focus ring by feel without taking your eye off the shot. With the ISO capabilities of the D600, I don't find the lack of VR to be a factor. It would be nice to have 2.8 but for this type of lens I would rarely use it. The lack of VR and the 3.5 aperture are really the only two possible complaints. The positives of this lens far outweigh any negatives. Having 77mm filters is a definite plus as I can use the filters I already own for the 70-200 and use step up rings for smaller lenses. If you want a light, wide angle zoom lens with excellent image quality, I would highly recommend the 18-35. An excellent package. Nikon has scored on this one.

UPDATED 5/8/2015: I wanted to update this review to state the following. This lens is so nice, light, and sharp on my D800 that I've sold off pretty much all my other gear except for the 800, this lens, and the Nikon 50 1.8. This is all the Nikon gear I have left now. And I couldn't be happier! I purchased this lens last summer to replace my Nikon 24-70 F2.8 that I sold. I wanted a lightweight lens instead of the beast of a 24-70. This lens fills that void. I find it to be extremely sharp, by f5.6 - F8 the corners are decent. I have no problems shooting stock images with this lens. For the price, it's a great bargain! I also had the 16-35 F4 and I sold that off as well. For my Nikon gear I now "only" have this lens, a 50mm 1.8, and the Nikon 70-200 F2.8 VR. I've pretty much got rid of everything else since I have moved to Fuji x-T1. However, these lenses, and my D800, D700 and D300 continue to work for me. In a couple of weeks I'll be shooting up in NYC and even though my Fuji kit will be the primary camera, my D800 with the 18-35 will be in the bag as well. The lens is so lightweight it's amazing it performs as well as it does. Vignetting is well controlled - except if you use a thick polarizer at 18mm. I have a Hoya thick polarizer that vignettes, and I have a Singh-Ray thin polarizer that does not. So it depends on what you use. I also do believe that LR (I'm on v 5.6) has the lens profile to fix any lens issues now. Really, I don't think you will fund such a versatile and useful lens at this price.

Nice lens. It feels a little cheaply built, you feel the plastic and the movements can feel sticky. But for the price it delivers more than you can ask for. I've found it most useful for urban photography, but have used it for waterfalls and some nature in Iceland and Switzerland. It is light, which is nice and of course a tradeoff of having more plastic and less glass. If you need a wide angle nikon lens on a budget this is a fabulous choice.

I've been looking for a nice wide-angle lens for a couple of years now (especially after moving to full frame three years ago) and just couldn't decide on anything in particular. I was looking for something very sharp throughout the frame, wide enough for most landscapes or architecture in closed-up spaces and light enough to take anywhere. I didn't want to buy some cheap kit or third-party lens which might be good enough. I'm a self-proclaimed pixel peeper and I knew I wouldn't be happy with a lens that exhibited imperfections such as chromatic aberration, softness in the corners or possible focusing issues. I wanted something that also produced good color and clarity. Up until this point I had tried the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 and liked it, but the lens was very heavy and I just could't see myself carrying it around in my bag just in case, or take it on long walking trips for casual shooting. The 14-24mm f/2.8 is the kind of lens you take out only if you REALLY intend to shoot some serious landscapes, or during important low light events that require ultra wide angle. The weight is a bit prohibitive and the size is ridiculous for casual outings. I then picked up a 28mm f/1.8G which is an excellent lens, super sharp, light, great for landscapes on a full frame body, but isn't wide enough for shooting large buildings around the city, especially when you're too close to them. I really wanted something wider for when I needed it. So, I began looking around at other options. I was deliberating between the Nikon 18-35mm f/3.5-45G and the Nikon 16-35mm f/4G VR. The price on both was fairly close, but more people seemed to buy the 16-35mm f/4G VR. At that point I asked myself a couple of questions. 1.) Do I need VR on this lens? - For me the answer is No. I would use it for landscapes in good light, and for long exposures the camera and lens would be mounted to a tripod. I guess some would argue I could do semi-long exposures hand-held with VR, but honestly,... how often would I ever do that? Almost never. In low light and at high ISO, full frame cameras are excellent these days and a wide angle can be easily hand-held at very slow shutter speeds even without VR. 2.) Do I need constant aperture of f/4? - For me the answer is No. Why would I? The 18-35mm is slightly faster at its widest with an aperture of f/3.5 so that's a bonus. At it's longest it becomes an f/4.5. No big deal there and not a big difference from the 16-35mm f/4. Most landscapes are shot anywhere from f/5.6 and smaller, so whether or not the lens is constant aperture, there doesn't seem to be any advantage. 3.) Do I need the extra two millimeter difference between 16mm and 18mm? - For me the answer is No. For some people this may be important and every millimeter counts, but for me the difference is not big enough to justify paying more. 4.) Which lens is sharper from corner to corner? - I did a lot of research before I made up my mind and in the end the 18-35mm seemed just a smidgen sharper than the 16-35mm f/4 G VR. That is what really mattered to me the most. The performance of the 18-35mm is just beautiful. After deliberating for weeks going back and forth, I settled on the Nikon 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G. It is a superb lens. Not only is it sharp, it also produces great colors and contrast, exhibits easy-to-fix wide angle distortion, easily accepts filters, is light enough to carry around just about anywhere (though not too light in that cheap sort of way), is well-built, focuses fairly quickly, and compared to other Nikon wide-angle zooms it is quite affordable! This lens is a gem. The only minor negative I can think of (if I must) is the zoom ring, which when first used, can be a little bit tough to turn. This gets better with frequent use. Would I recommend this lens? Absolutely. I shoot it with a Nikon D610 and a Nikon D750 and these work great together. DX/CROP SENSOR SHOOTERS... This lens is great on any Nikon, but if you're shooting with a crop sensor and looking for ultra wide angle, you may need something wider than 18mm. This is a wide lens on a full frame body, but on a crop sensor it may not be wide enough for you. It would make it about a 28mm equivalent (1.5 crop factor multiplied my 18mm) at the wide end. You'll want to look into wide angle lenses specifically designed for DX models, BUT.... if you plan to upgrade to full frame sometime soon, this 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G would be a great choice. ONE MORE THING THOUGH.... If I were looking for a landscape lens today and I didn't need the flexibility of a zoom, I would also look into the newly released Nikon 20mm f/1.8G. It is two millimeters narrower, but it offers a much wider aperture at f/1.8 (for low light situations) and may be sharper from corner to corner (although honestly this 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G is really, really good). If the 20mm f/1.8G is as sharp as the 28mm f/1.8G, it should be phenomenal.

There are already so many good reviews for this lens it's hard to add anything that has not been said already. On my D600 this lens is sharp, corner to corner with no noticeable vignetting, even wide open. (In a laboratory maybe, but not in the real world...) This is great because it means you can crop aggressively and not worry too much about IQ. And that means fewer lens changes. There have been some complaints about the lens is light, but since I travel with it, I see this as a plus. Despite being light, it does not give the impression of being cheap. It feels well-constructed and nicely balanced on the D600. Some reviewers have given this lens 4 stars for being 'plastic'. In this price category, it does not seem sensible to my mind to mark a lens down for having a polycarbonate barrel. If Nikon offered this lens in metal with a higher weight and a higher price, I bet it wouldn't sell. What I want is IQ and this lens delivers way above expectations. The step-up in barrel diameter is strangely comfortable to grip - almost makes me wish my other lenses were shaped this way too. What confused me a bit at first, is that unlike the similar-sized 24-85mm I have, the zoom ring is closest to the camera and the focus ring is way out in front. I got comfortable quickly, but changing back and forth between lenses may take a bit of getting used to. The front lens element does protrude a bit, so get a filter to leave on the lens for protection. A negative for me is the 77mm filter size. It seems the days when a 62mm filter fitted most of your lenses is long gone. I got the Hoya HMC UV slim frame and it does not vignette at all as far as I can see. Some have commented that the lens is not fast, but remember fast = shallow depth of field. Since I mostly use this for landscapes, f3.5 is way fast enough and I actually like the fact that I do not have to remember to keep switching the VR on and off as I move from tripod to handheld and back. Shot into the bright tropical sun, with the sun in frame, I can see no ghosting or flaring. Not at f3.5, nor at f14. The ED coatings must therefore work as advertised, though I suspect a low winter sun might cause minor flaring. However, I have seen some wide angles that seem to flare no matter where the sun is, so I think this is really well-controlled. If like me, you already have the 'kit' 24-85mm and are worried that getting this as well will be over-kill, don't. At the wide end 6mm makes more difference than would think. I photographed a country lane at 24mm and 18mm to compare and the 18mm shot draws the eye in much further - giving a far better impression of a receding tunnel of greenery. I am delighted with the lens. It cannot compete with the 14-24mm for IQ. But compare apples to apples and tell me if you can beat the IQ for the price. If you plan to travel and don't want to drag along a collection of primes, this light-weight is a great companion to the 24-85mm and 70-300mm.

The package was missing two pieces: 1. HB-66 Bayonet Lens Hood, 2. CL-1118 Semi-soft Lens Case

The Nikon 18-35 G is truly a fantastic lens for the money and is easily worth the upgrade over the D. It's optically very close in quality to the much more expensive 16-35 (and basically as fast), although no VR can be an issue if you're doing something like shooting waterscapes or waterfalls handheld. It's much sharper at big apertures than the 18-35 D, and it's build quality also feels far superior. It doesn't telescope at all when zooming, which is nice for outdoor enthusiasts that take their cameras out on the tough stuff. It also feels more solid because of the removal of the aperture ring. Lots of people comment on this lens being light -- it's true, but it doesn't ever cause the lens to feel flimsy.

Der Titel steht für den Vergleich des 18-35 zum 14-24 (an D800). Natürlich hinkt der Vergleich. Fotografiert habe ich innen (Kunstlicht), außen "blaue Stunde", je aus der Hand und vom Stativ. Bilder jeweils mit 18-20-24mm Brennweite! Ich habe 8 neutrale Personen am Monitor (24") bewerten lassen. Vergleich Stativ innen: 18-35 und 14-24. Kein Unterschied 4:4 Vergleich Hand innen: 14-24 gewinnt klar 1:7 *1) Vergleich Stativ außen: 18-35 und 14-24. 5:3, eigentlich kein Unterschied. Vergleich Hand außen: 18-35 und 14-24. 3:5, eigentlich auch kein Unterschied. *1) Verschlusszeit mit dem 18-35 zu lang, daher eher "verwackelt" Pro/Cons: Mit dem 18-35 liegt die D800 sensationell in der Hand und hängt erträglich am Gurt an der Hüfte. Das 14-24 ist ein kopflastiger Klotz, "rum tragen" macht begrenzt Spaß. Fotos mit internem Blitz: Beim 14-24 ist die Gegenlicht-Blende fest und es ist mächtig, daher wirft es riesige Schatten. Es ist nicht mit internem Blitz zu verwenden. 18-35 kann man ohne Geli verwenden. Ab 21mm ist es dem Blitz nicht mehr im Weg. Auch darunter fällt es je nach Aufnahmesituation nicht auf. Beim "Pixelzählen" der Bilder vom Stativ, kann ich keine Unterschiede feststellen. In einigen wenigen Bildsituationen bei wenig Licht konnte ich beim 18-35 leichte Vignettierung erzeugen. Für 99% meiner Aufnahmen völlig unerheblich. Über 4 Jahre habe ich das 14-24. Ich habe es wenig benutzt. Ich bin aber generell kein "Weitwinkel Typ". Das Gros meiner Bilder mache ich mit dem AF-S 24-70 2.8, auf Platzt 2 ist das AF-S 50mm/1.4, usw. Mit dem 14-24 sind mir einige aufsehen erregende Aufnahmen gelungen. In meiner persönlichen Top 100 ist aber nur ein Bild in 14mm Brennweite. Meist hat mir beim 14-24 Brennweite nach Oben gefehlt. Ohne jedwede Reue verkaufe ich mein 14-24 und bin sehr begeistert von meinem neuen 18-35. Vermeintlich "große" Unterschiede hinsichtlich "Verarbeitungsqualität" sind in der Praxis für den normalen, bis semi professionellen Anwender praktisch nicht vorhanden. Hohes Gewicht, kaum Spiel bei den Bedienelementen und ein hoher Preis, nimmt der Verbraucher als "hochwertig" war. Die Funktion der Linse ist aber, den Sensor mit ausreichend Auflösung zu bedienen, nicht zu Verzeichnen oder zu Vignettieren, und über einen durchschnittlichen Anwendungszeitraum zu funktionieren. Wer Brennweite unter 18mm "seltenst" braucht und nicht bei schwachem Licht mit niederen ISO Werten aus der Hand fotografieren möchte, der braucht kein 14-24.

wanted a wide angle for night sky and other night photography. I have found this lens to be very good lens for what I was looking for. It is lighter and maybe a little slower than the 14- 24 f2.8. But is a great alternative when you are on a tighter budget. I find the lens to be sharp across the image when shooting at f8. Little bit of corner vignette when you shoot it wide open but nothing to be worried about. Lens correction in post will fix most issues you may find. Again very happy with this lens it was a great solution for my needs and budget.

Initially i do not knew if i will buy this lens or 16-35, and i opted by this due to its lower price and size. I am very happy with its performance, sharpnes and light weight. Very good to use with circular filters because do not causes vigneting in the corners. The only issue is the distortion but the distortion correction in post processing can help here. So i am very happy with this lens, and i recomend for those who cant buy 16-35 and want a lightweight lens.

If you have something like a 24-120mm F4 then this lens is a good second lens for your camera. As a F3.5 to F4.5 this lens cops flack because it is not a continuous F4 but its only one third of a Stop up and down from F4 anyway; this is hardly a big deal. For Nikon photographers these older AF-S lenses are much cheaper than the new Z series lens but can be adapted to the new Z bodies with the FTZ II adapter. Given appropriate care this lens is robust and should last you for years and years. Great lens for all those extra wide angle shots. I use mine for cloud-scape photography.

Lente davvero eccellente, mi ha stupito e sono uno che ha il palato fino. Precisiamo, non sono uno che va per monumenti e chiese, street o eventi... Io sono un PAESAGGISTA. Il mio diaframma sta quasi sempre a F11 e la lente piantata su cavalletto, per questi utilizzi strizza i megapixel della D850, colori corretti, bel contrasto, non patisce per niente il controluce, pochissima vignettatura, filtri da 77, peccato un po' di distorsione alle basse focali. Va incredibilmente bene anche in notturna! Costa poco e da molto, davvero consigliata, soprattutto in relazione a 16-35 o 14-24 che non li ho trovati così ben utilizzabili.