8 out of 10 points and recommendedprice compared to Nikon's, my copy's CA is GOOD!pay attention to the quality problem
The first copy I got had HORRIBLE IQ compared with my 18-200 VR! It was obviously a trash and something was seriously wrong. Returned the copy and got the new one. This copy is OK, the IQ from 18-22 is slightly better than my 18-200 VR (better in the corner but a bit worse in the center). At 24 this len is much worse than 18-200 VR until you step down to f8 which become just a little worse.reviewed May 10th, 2007 (purchased for $480)
It cannot focus well indoor at short distance (4 feet) on a white stuffed animal. My 18-200 VR has no problem.
However, the CA of my copy is very good!!
10 out of 10 points and recommendedVery sharp at any apecture! Great build! Prime killer.Pricy.
This is easily my sharpest roon lens ever! I own Nikon's pro glasses like 17-35 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8, 17-55 f2.8, 50 f1.4, 12-24 f4, etc. However, this lens easily blew all my other lenses away. It beats my 50 f1.4 prime at F2.8!reviewed December 4th, 2007 (purchased for $1,700)
Anti-glare ability is amazing. Nano-coating really works.
I can't wait to try it on my coming D3. Highly recommended!
10 out of 10 points and recommendedBest landscape lens ever!No complain at all
This is hands down the best landscape lens made by Nikon. Compared with Nikon's new 14-24, this lens might not as sharp at corners wide open, but you can't use any filters on14-24. For indoor work you probably need 14-24, however this lens is no doubt THE best landscape lens made by Nikon!reviewed September 23rd, 2008 (purchased for $1,450)
4 out of 10 points and not recommendedBuild quality is OKpricy, IQ
This lens doesn't have any reason to exist anymore. The same priced Nikon 14-24 beat it hands down. Go for the 14-24 zoom!reviewed October 23rd, 2008 (purchased for $1,450)
9 out of 10 points and recommendedvery sharp wide open! 3mm wider than 17-35mm.doesn't take filters
I kind of 'disappointed' about this lens a little based on the hype every review I read. I am a landscape guy and mainly use 17-35, and 24-70 on D3. I bought this lens because of two reasons: 1. it is 3mm wider than 17-35, 2. it is sharper wide open than 17-35. However, after I got this lens, the IQ improvement from 17-35 is almost negligible (only better in very extreme corners wide open), you won't see any IQ difference between 17-35 and 14-24 if you just print 12X18" print. In the center, I feel like 17-35 is even sharper.reviewed November 3rd, 2008 (purchased for $1,500)
So for me, since I already got 17-35, the benefits to own both lens are very limited. The great thing of 17-35 is that it takes filters!
However, if you don't have 17-35, this is a wonderful lens to own. If you do, it's not worth it since there is basically no big IQ improvement you gain.
3 out of 10 points and recommendedNonesample variation is too big!
My copy of this lens was bad, zoom ring is so tight that very difficult move. It is very soft all the range and I quickly figured out it has very bad back focus issue. Got a second copy still not sharp enough. There is no way this DX lens anywhere NEAR 24-70, 17-35, and 14-24. Forget it!reviewed November 4th, 2008 (purchased for $1,200)