Anyone used/own a Nikon 20-35 f/2.8?

Discussion in 'Photography Equipment & Products' started by Sw1tchFX, Jul 9, 2009.

  1. Sw1tchFX

    Sw1tchFX TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    May 3, 2006
    Messages:
    7,500
    Likes Received:
    478
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I'm guessing nobody on here even owns one of these, they're getting a little scarce nowadays..

    I'm looking to replace my 24-120VR at the wide end because I need something that's faster, sharper, a little wider, small, lightweight, can take abuse, and can still take filters.



    From what i've seen, the 20-35 seems like it's the best bet, considering that I can get one in pretty darn mint at $700. The 17-35 is really nice, but I don't think I really need it, I rarely need to go wider then 24ish-mm, and the 20-35 is more petite.



    I'm curious on anyone's input on the lens. I have the 50mm f/1.4G, and 80-200 f/2.8D (2 ring), and this 20-35 looks to just be the wide version of the 80-200. I hate the crinkle coat, but whatever, I love the build of my 80-200 (it's been dropped on concrete and asphalt on two occasions, and nothing but a little gaffers tape fixed it), and I know the 20-35 will match the 80-200 in build.



    I just need a wide zoom option for when i'm doing work, because the 24-120, although flexible, isn't that great except at f/11ish, and when i'm at work, that's unacceptable.


    Thanks!!!
     
  2. JerryPH

    JerryPH No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    6,111
    Likes Received:
    15
    Location:
    Montreal, QC, Canada
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I don't own one, but found a few reviews of this lens. It seems reasonably sharp with only the 14-24 the only lens that will easily trump it. It came out in 1993, and looks a lot like a mini 85mm F/1.4... lol

    It was replaced by the 17-35, but quality was not improved on much anywhere except the 30-35mm range where sharpness was better on the 17-35. You should be able to find a nice 17-35 for around $800-$900 for a good used one which is not much more (my mistake, I first said it was less), which is where I would be looking... but my heart is set on the 14-24... nothing else will do for me. :)
     
  3. benhasajeep

    benhasajeep TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    May 4, 2006
    Messages:
    2,101
    Likes Received:
    15
    Location:
    Eddington, ME
    I have one and yes its built like a tank. I think its about 9-10 years old (bought new by me). Never had a problem with it. The only thing I have to compare it with is a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 in Canon flavor. But I have never done a side by side test between the two. Build quality is night and day between the two.

    Shot film and digital with it and have never had a shot where I determined the lens was at fault quality wise.

    One nice thing is it uses same filter size as the 80-200 (77mm) :D. If you can get a deal on it and need a lens in that range I would get it. I would wager the lens is better in optical quality than a third party lens covering the same range made today. Like for example my Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 which is a little soft. A very useable and good lens, but not quite as sharp as the 20-35 (different range of course).
     
  4. Sw1tchFX

    Sw1tchFX TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    May 3, 2006
    Messages:
    7,500
    Likes Received:
    478
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Ok, cool that's good to know. Thanks for the replies!! I'm in the process of getting one for $700 minty, and i'm thinking it's a pretty good deal. If I don't like it, i'm confident i'll be able to sell it for at least $800.

    Thanks again for the replies!!
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page
nikon 17-35 vs 20-35
,

nikon 20-35

,
nikon 20-35 2.8
,
nikon 20-35 2.8 review
,
nikon 20-35 f2.8 review
,
nikon 20-35 review
,
nikon 20-35 reviews
,
nikon 20-35 vs 17-35
,
nikon 20-35 vs 24-70
,
nikon 20-35mm review