|
|
|
08-12-2011, 10:31 AM
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1313128215' post='10660']
Correct brand, wrong lens. [/quote] Hard to believe that Nikon would make such a poor performing lens.
08-12-2011, 10:36 AM
Is the 18-35mm f3.5-4.5 really the worst lens of Nikon?
08-12-2011, 10:38 AM
[quote name='Frank' timestamp='1313145406' post='10689']
Is the 18-35mm f3.5-4.5 really the worst lens of Nikon? [/quote] It's pretty decent in the APS-C scope actually so it depends on how you look at it. 
08-12-2011, 10:42 AM
[quote name='Frank' timestamp='1313145406' post='10689']
Is the 18-35mm f3.5-4.5 really the worst lens of Nikon? [/quote] Of course it isn't. But in the scope of the variables and areas Photozone tests, it scores low. You can still make nice wise angle photos with it when you stop down enough and place nothing of detail importance in the corners. And you correct the CA. Numerous early zooms, and cheaper consumer zooms from the 80's and early 90's can be considered worse.
08-12-2011, 01:51 PM
I wonder how the original 24-120VR would rate on FX... I'm guessing it might even trump the 18-35!
DH 
08-12-2011, 02:41 PM
[quote name='dhazeghi' timestamp='1313157119' post='10698']
I wonder how the original 24-120VR would rate on FX... I'm guessing it might even trump the 18-35! [/quote] Most likely, yes. -- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com
08-12-2011, 02:51 PM
(This post was last modified: 08-12-2011, 02:53 PM by backcountryskier.)
Reminds me of Tamron 19-35/3.5-4.5
Worst lens I've owned. Very poor contrast, useless AF (hunted continuously even in bright daylight), ca and purple fringing measured in inches, blurry even at f/11, and so on. I tried two copies, both were equally poor. Funny thing is, on the FM user review page some people rave about this lens. |
