Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 20-35mm f/2.8 D IF
by Thom Hogan; created 1997
I've always loved wide angle lenses. Ninety percent of my pictures have been
taken at one extreme or the other (17-28mm or 200-720mm). I don't even own a 50mm
lens (unless you count a 60 macro).
When I made the switch from Minolta to Nikon, I had to find a replacement for
my wide angle staple, the Sigma 21-35mm f/3.5-5.6. At the time, the two natural
choices were the 20-35mm AF Nikkor and the Sigma 18-35mm that replaced the
21-35mm. I bought both. (I also bought a 17mm Tokina for those times I really
wanted to go wide.)
The Basics
This Nikkor has a fixed f/2.8 aperture, with a minimum aperture of f/22.
Focusing can be as close as 1.7 feet (.5m). The IF in the name indicates that it
is an internal focus lens, meaning the front element does not move during zoom or
focus. The D in the name means that focus distance is used in flash and metering
calculations by the camera.
The manual zoom and focus rings are separate, and easily distinguished. At the
front of the lens, you'll be screwing in 77mm accessories (Nikon's larger
standard, shared by several other large front-element lenses). If you have to
know, there are 14 elements in 11 groups, but I challenge anyone reading this to
make an intelligent comment about how that might impact a buying decision.
You'll have to buy the optional hood (HB-8) and lens pouch (No. 62). You do,
however, get the hard case (CL-46) and a set of Nikon lens caps (can you believe
that you don't get a usable body cap when you buy an F5?).
The primary drawback to the lens is size. From the front flange of the camera,
the lens will stick out 4.1 inches (105cm). And it adds 20.6 ounces (585g) to
your carrying burden. Part of this is due to the metal barrel and other metal
parts on the lens (read on…this is a good thing).
By way of comparison, the Sigma 18-35mm is much lighter (the
specification sheet doesn't say, but I'd guess in the 10 ounce range). It uses
82mm filters and comes with the lens hood. The downside, of course, is that it
has a maximum aperture of f/3.5, this drops to f/4.5 at the "telephoto" end.
Handling
Nikon knows how to make lenses that handle well. The focus and zoom rings are
easily distinguished, have a silky, "attached" feel to them, and both go from one
extreme to the other in lens than a quarter turn. Yes, I said a quarter of a
turn. Brilliant. Better still, the button to switch from manual to automatic
focus is right behind the focus ring at 2 o'clock (facing the camera, 10 o'clock
from the viewfinder position). The way I hold the camera, this button hits
naturally under my middle finger.
The aperture ring has the usual Nikon feel--at slow speeds it clicks in at
each aperture, at high manipulation speeds the stops are not as well-defined. For
shutter-priority use, the little minimum f-stop lock gives most Nikon users fits,
and I'm no different. Keep a fingernail long if you want to have a chance to use
this switch, as it's so close to the bigger zoom ring (and most Nikon viewfinders
have an aperture-viewing overhang), that most users won't be able to get their
finger into this space.
One caution: the rear element is highly curved and sticks back past part of
the bayonet. On one side a "hump" protects the element from stray fingers, but on
more than half of the diameter, it is easy to accidentally touch or bump the rear
element. This isn't a problem with the front element, as it is recessed enough
behind the filter threads that you won't often find yourself touching it.
The lens hood bayonets onto the front piece, and is made of cheap, almost
flexible, plastic. Getting the bayonet lined up is helped by a small white dot on
both parts. Unfortunately, you won't see the dot on the lens unless you're behind
the camera--if you try to put the bayonet on from the front, you won't see the
dot. On the plus side, you can leave the hood on and get the lens cap on and off
if you have small fingers like I do.
The Sigma lens, by comparison, is an all-plastic barrel and has a cheap feel
to it. The manual focus ring doesn't feel like it's connected to anything,
although it obviously works. The front element of the Sigma is also highly curved
and sticks out right to the extent allowed by the lens cap. Fortunately, it's
smaller than the diameter of the lens at this point (something I don't quite
understand--tell me why it had to be 82mm out front). The Sigma is so light in
heft compared to the Nikkor, you'll wonder how it can even take decent pictures.
But it does.
Performance
What can I say? This lens takes great pictures when my brain is engaged
(all lenses take bad pictures when my brain is elsewhere). Autofocus
action is very fast (typical with most wide angle lenses). At f/2.8 you'll
see some corner falloff, but this gets better and is mostly gone by f/5.6. Again,
this is to be expected with a lens this wide (94 degree field of view!).
Flare is a problem with this lens if you point it at the sun, as it is with
most zooms. Keep the hood on, and watch carefully for indications that you're
getting flare when you include the sun in or near your shot. My Minolta and Sigma
lenses had higher flare levels, but if you really want to be as flare free as
possible, you'll want to consider a fixed focal length Nikkor, like the 20mm
AF.
One thing I love about this lens is how little barrel distortion it has, at
any zoom setting. Assuming that you keep the camera level, straight lines near
the edge of the frame will look like straight lines, having only a itsy-bitsy
amount of curve. All bets are off if you start doing things like getting close
and angling the camera up, as you would expect. The Sigma is also pretty good,
but not as good as the Nikon--my shots with the Sigma often show visible barrel
distortion, especially at the wide setting..
I find that most of my pictures taken with this lens have a "snap" to them.
I've never done a direct comparison, but pictures taken with the Nikkor have more
contrast than those taken with the Sigma in the same situation. Part of this can
be attributed to better flare control.
I use the Cokin P filter holder to hold Singh-Ray graduated filters. On some
wide-angle lenses, you need to be careful that the holder doesn't show up in the
picture (I can't use this on the Sigma, for instance). I've even mounted a
polarizer and the P filter holder on the 20-35 and managed to not vignette. But
then, again, remember I'm using slide film on an N90s, so the holder could be
showing up "under the mount."
As noted, the Sigma has more problems with flare, and the pictures taken with
it, while quite good, don't quite have the punch as the ones I get from the
Nikkor. In situations where I can control the light and am not shooting into the
sun, either lens will do just fine. Otherwise, I want the Nikkor. Of course,
there is that small $1100 difference in price.
One final word about performance. I have no way of measuring actual focal
length or aperture. But taking out a 20mm, fixed focal length lens and comparing
it to the view on the 20-35mm zoom gave me the same angle of view. I highly
question the 18mm setting of the Sigma, however. It is a little wider than
the 20mm the Nikon provides, but I don't think it is a true 18mm. It also seems a
bit short of 35mm at the other end. If I had to guess, I'd say the Sigma is a
19-33mm zoom. Still not bad, but not quite what's advertised.
The Story
Coming down the 17,000' pass near Huascaran in the Peruvian Andes, I came to a
strange forest of red-trunked trees I'm tempted to call a glade. The bad news was
that this entrancing ecosystem was perched on the side of a very steep, rocky
hill. I had given my walking stick to a woman who was having trouble scrambling
down the rocks (they were bigger than she was). I had the N90s and the 20-35mm
hanging around my neck for taking pictures when I lost my balance, fell down a
rock face, and to my dismay, watched the camera define a beautiful arc from my
body to the rock when I hit bottom. The blow was pretty severe, and the lens hood
did a nice ejection from the lens, landing twenty feet away.
I figured I had just totaled a lens that cost me $1600. I looked at the lens.
I looked through the camera. I tried focusing. I took a picture or two (not a
very good one, since I was still shook from the fall). I looked closer at the
lens. The filter ring has a nice dent in it, but that's the only damage I could
find. I went to retrieve the lens hood, expecting to find it shattered. No way.
It had a nice chunk gouged out of one of the front "wings", and another cosmetic
scar that went from the gouge to place on the lens where the filter ring was
bent.
As far as I can tell, the hood absorbed the brunt of the initial blow, and
like an air bag, slowed the lens down enough so that when it hit the rock, it did
so with only a glancing blow. I still haven't had the nick fixed (and still use
the "damaged" hood), and haven't seen any difference in photographs taken before,
or after, the incident. Unfortunately, I'll need to spring for a repair soon, as
I use graduated filters extensively, and can't use them in a holder until the
filter thread ring is replaced.
Drawbacks
- Expense. My first two cars cost less than this lens. An F4 body costs less
than this lens. My 166Mhz Pentium cost less than this lens. You can buy and
process over 150 rolls of film for the cost of this lens. This last puts things
in prospective. If you shoot a lot of film (hundreds of rolls a year), this lens
will pay for itself, eventually. If you're a casual shooter who doesn't know what
a brick of film is, go for the Sigma until you can tell what's missing from your
pictures.
- Weight. You're already carrying a heavy camera body (N90s, F4, F5), are you
sure you want to nearly double the weight? I can't believe the amount of gear I
carried through 100 miles or more of 11,000-17,000 foot trekking. My only
consolation was that several others carried more!
- Filter Size. Ever tried to buy a 77mm circular polarizer? Expect to pay
$100-150 for a good one. And you won't find one of these at any old photo store.
Even my favorite local pro shop (Keeble & Schucat in Palo Alto, CA) doesn't
always have them in stock.
- No depth of field scale. Yup, that's right, a $1600 lens with no DOF
scale. Instead, you get this nifty
cut-it-out-of-the-manual-and-assemble-it-yourself scale. Right. And where exactly
do I carry this flimsy excuse of a tool? Of course, at f/22 focused at 2 feet,
infinity is still in the circle of confusion! And, if you bought this lens, you
probably already have a camera with a depth-of-field preview, which is more
useful than the tiny DOF scales you get on a lens, anyway.
Competition
- The Sigma 18-35mm or 21-35mm. The former is lightweight and a newer design.
The latter is a sturdier, older design. Both are more than adequate for casual
shooters, but watch for distortion and flare.
- Fixed focal length lenses. Nikon makes some extraordinary wide angle lenses.
The 20mm AF f/2.8 is 9.2 ounces, less than half that of the 20-35mm zoom. It
focuses closer, takes 62mm filters, and works well with a reversing ring for
close-up photography. The 24mm AF f/2.8N is even smaller, weighs 8.9 ounces, uses
52mm filters, has some DOF info on the lens itself, and has superb edge-to-edge
sharpness.
Add a comment
