Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED lens now shipping *UPDATED*


Quick update: the Nikkor AF-S 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED lens is now shipping and is currently in stock at B&H and Amazon US, Amazon UK and Amazon Germany. Sample images can be found on Nikon's website.

Update: some sample images taken with the lens are available on Nikon Europe also uploaded more samples on flickr:

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • David G.

    I can’t wait to see how this lens performs, especially vs. the 16-35 f/4 🙂

    • Dr SCSI

      If you are primarily into landscape, I’m sure it is fine. A lot less weight and size means the perfect back pack lens. I coudn’t find MTF charts on either lens at, so we will have to wait for third party evals and images for comparison. I am curious about its resolving power and matching it up to high megapixel cameras like the D800/E. It comes down to a bit faster at 18mm, a bit slower at 35mm (hardly worth the discussion), a smaller lighter package, a slightly reduced max FOV vs the 16-35 f/4, and $750 vs $1250 for the 16-35mm f/4 VR brother. As I have both the 14-24 and the 16-35, this lens doesn’t even come into consideration for myself, but my friend looking for similar capabilities on his D800 might be interested, as well as numerous others.

      • jagigen
        • Dr SCSI

          Thanks jagigen! After looking at the two charts from both lenses, in theory, the 16-35 lens will better resolve high frequency details; which will be needed for high MP cameras like the D800. Landscape images on a monitor should look great with the 18-35 lens, but large posters will probably reveal its weaknesses in the details. But until I get to personally shoot with the new one, I wouldn’t call any clear winners. The $500 price premium for a wider FOV and slightly better details and VR might not be something everyone can justify. If used for stitched landscapes and shot vertically with 30% overlap, one probably wouldn’t notice the difference without very close scrutiny. The smaller/lighter package shouldn’t be forgot either; like all else, it is a game of compromises!

  • Vin

    I would like to now in relation to the new 28mm. At 28mm on this zoom.

    • itznfb

      You’re kidding right?

      • Vin

        Yes, and no, obviously this zoom will not preform as go as a prime that has come in with some pretty good reviews. I am just wounding where the sweet spot is on this one. I already have a 17-35 Tonkin.

        • Joseph

          Love me a good Tonkin lens

          • Nikon Shooter

            I think I’m more of a Sigmund fan when it comes to third-party uwa lenses. Tonkin has been having some serious QC issues.

            • Matt

              Is that a “Freudian” slip? I think you mean Sigma. And Tokina.

        • Calibrator

          And did you have any incidents with your Tonkin?

    • jake

      the A is a junk , do not compare it to this lens ,which is truly amazing in resolution and flare resistance (which is for me the most important feature of any wide lens).

      • Vin

        I am not very interested in the A, I would rather wait for a pancake lens for the Fuji x line.

  • itznfb

    This would be such an amazing kit lens replacement for the average hobbyist/enthusiast if it was ~$200 less. Unless this lens turns out to be stellar the Tokina 17-35mm is still going to be a much better choice.

    • desmo

      it’s priced the same as the 10-24 Dx lens ,and appears to be similar in quality and spec, so not a gold ring but not a kit lens either.
      On the Dx side the 10-24 equals the 12-24 gold ring in optical performance.
      My guess is it will be a better choice than the third party lens

    • Kim

      But the Tokina weighs 600 grams, is way bigger and takes 82mm filters! Hardly the small and light option the Nikkor is meant to be…

  • ageha

    Any reviews out yet?

    • Could not find any.

      • ageha

        Can’t even find any sample photos except the ones from Nikon… 🙁

        • kontxt
        • kriz.val
          • No longer Pablo Ricasso

            That’s what I wanted to see. It has a small but consistent loss of sharpness in the EXTREME corners, where it usually matters little. It is only visible at high magnification and then only on the photos where the composition has something in the corner that would be in focus. It looks better in that regard than the 16-35 or the Tokina 16-28. But the main things I see with this are center sharpness that extends nearly across the frame and excellent color. It reminds me of my 25-50, but with the good portion comprising much more of the frame. The Tokina, from what I have seen is an excellent lens but does not have the colors that this has. The colors of the older 18-35 were similar to this but without the vividness or vibrancy. This lens seems to impart the color that the engineers had expected or that which they would do for every lens if cost were no factor. It should do well against most primes if you have enough light to stop it down just a bit. You all would be talking about this lens a LOT if it weren’t for the 14-24. Or maybe it needs to be made of metal and cost more to be noticed. It will be great to carry with a 35-70. It is probably good enough to negate the possibility of me buying a 20-35 or even a 17-35.

        • ageha

          Thanks guys!

  • leicaglow

    I loved my old version for general kicking around, but the CA with backlighting was a bear. I see by one of the images on the nikon site that CA still looks like a problem.

    • Eric Calabos

      How you could notice the CA in such low res images?

      • Global

        I don’t see anything in those small pictures. Nikon rarely ever shows full size images at launch, ridiculously. Maybe he is seeing reflected light.

    • mezzotint


      The images on Nikon´s site are very small. How can you recognize CA?

      These images on the site are a joke.

      • benjamin

        i think he means the CA of the older version of the 18-35

  • wiso

    for the first time, an FX lens is cheaper then any equivalent in DX format (Nikon 10-24 or 12-24 f4)

    • jake

      and much better than DX equivalent lens in this case.
      I am positively surprised with this one, and this one is a keeper for me.

    • Mansgame

      Too bad they’re not doing the same at the telephoto end with the new 80-400 being almost 3 grand. I don’t use long telephotos often so I can’t justify spending that kind of money on it, but it’d be nice to have something with extra reach for once in a while.

      • The 70-300 VR is a pretty decent lens.

        • twoomy

          Agreed! While it’s not the brightest lens, the 70-300 performs remarkably well on the D800. It’s surprisingly sharp for a lens that some people have written off as a junky lens. I actually love it.

          • Swade

            Jay Maisel mainly uses the 70-300. That’s good enough reason to use that lens for me.

          • desmo

            it’s not junk ,
            but it’s not sharp
            at least not my copy

        • Mansgame

          I used to own that but went with an older 80-200mm later for a couple of hundred dollars more. It’s just now with full frame I wouldn’t mind having something in the 400 to 500 mm range even if it’s slow

  • Cheap glasses

    This lens is since one week in stock at Amazon Germany. The price drops down from 749 Euro to 703 Euro. The lowest price was 683 Euro.

    • Calibrator

      Doesn’t mean much as Amazon’s prices are fluctuating.
      Right now it is at 729 Euros.

      • mezzotint

        Yes, that´s the probleme. It is a good solution to keep an eye on the price for some weeks.

  • jake

    I got it a few days back and I liked it a lot more than I thought I would.
    it is sharp wide open and small and very light on my D600 and balances very well on my D800E.

    • Vin

      How Sharp is it at 24mm 5.6-f11. I am thinking of buying the 28mm 2.8. My Tonkina is soft on the D800E. But it would be nice to have a sharper small lens at 20mm-24mm.

      • Kyle

        which Tokina lens are you talking about?

        I’m currently looking into the 16-24mm (or whatever it is) as I hear it is nearly as sharp as the 14-24mm Nikkor when you stop the Tokina down beyond F/4, for less than half the price of the Nikon lens. Losing 2mm and 2 stops for half the price seems worth it to me.

  • Jon McGuffin

    Considering the virtual same price as the very well built and strong optics of the Tokina 16-28 F2.8, I am just not sure this lens would make sense for most..

    • patto01

      Lighter, better resale value, larger zoom range, and filters.
      Actually, I’m debating between the two. The 18-35 (general purpose UWA) and Tokina’s 16-28 (specialty UWA) are really two entirely different lenses. Since I can only afford one right now, it’s difficult to decide which one will serve me best, first. I’ll have to wait for the first review(s).

    • Global

      How can you say it doesn’t make sense? Since when are 16mm and 18mm, and 28mm and 35mm, the same thing?? 16-28mm is an ultra-wide, 18-35mm is a wide normal. There is no confusing these two lenses. The 16-28mm totally replaces the 14-24mm in a bag, but the 18-35mm is an entirely different concept.

  • teddy

    Hope you full-framers are happy. Where’s my D400?

    • AM

      In your imagination.

    • twoomy

      I would love for you to be happy, but sorry, I just don’t think there’s a D400 in store for you.

      • D600is400

        It’ll be here by Summer. And they’ll apply a price cut right after you buy it. And then they’ll announce a D7300 with better resolution & higher ISO. And then you’ll be crying, “Where’s my D500?”

  • twoomy

    I preordered from B&H right at the announcement. My order has been “pending” since last Thurs when it was first available. Hoping it ships today; this lens is exactly what I’ve been wanting!

  • reporteratlarge

    This lens should be compared not only to similar zooms, but similar focal length primes. I have a Nikon 20mm 2.8D on my D600 (plus the Nikon 24-70 2.8) and I see no reason to buy this lens. The 20mm is $200 cheaper, 30% lighter and performs well.

    • twoomy

      I think the corners on this new lens will be much better than the 20mm. I have the 20mm as well and it’s sharp in the center but you really have to stop down to f/11 to get acceptable corners. Still it’s a fun lens.

      • Global

        The 20mm is feeling its age for sure. I think this lens will out-perform it (except at 2.8 of course). Besides, the fact that you can go to 35mm and it completely gets rid of your need for a 24/28/35. Being f/3.5 is not that dark at the wide-end. And f/4 is quite common these days, so, especially with VR, f/4.5 can be acceptable with modern glass (whereas it would be a bit poor with older glass and no VR), which tends to pop less.

  • Cndlpwr

    Mine has shipped from BHPV. I’m eager to see how it performs on my D800.

  • Back to top