Nikkor 18mm f/3.5 AIS

[yanick]

Hello all,
I recently bought this lens (along with a pre-ai nikkor 28 f2.8 ). I like the handling on the D300.  I didn't do extensive tests, but so far I find that the IQ is good and compares well with the afs 12-24 f4 dx at 18mm except for higher distorsion and maybe lower microcontrast.
#1 on  D300
#2 on D5100
#3 afs dx 12-24 f/4 on D5100 (the focus may not have been set at exact same same distance)

anyone having an opinion/experience with this lens ?

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The 18/3.5 AIS Nikkor is very well built and is a pleasure to use. The image quality is good as well, although the lens is somewhat susceptible to flare.

I would characterise the 18/3.5 largely as you did. The 12-24 DX is no longer in my possession, being replaced by the 10-24, thus I cannot compare in the same manner. I would expect the 10-24 to do more or less the same job, perhaps with a little less CA. However, the CA of the 18/3.5 is of the lateral kind and thus very easy to correct in the work flow.

The CPU modification of the 18/3.5 is detailed here: http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,32.0.html

 

[pluton]

I shot some tests with an 18/3.5 Ais;  It had distinctly stronger color saturation than the 18/4 Ai I had been using.  My used sample was defective in focus, so I didn't buy it.  My only issue with a good copy would be the clip-on lens shade, in both availability and efficacy.  The pictures are good.
My eventual choice(for about US$300 more) was a used Zeiss ZF.2 18/35, which has a nice deep petal-style shade.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

The 18/4 is indeed different from its successor in terms of colour. Keith's description is apt. The difference in contrast follows the same pattern.

Neither of the two has an adequate lens shade and it is actually better to use them without. Just remember what while the hood doesn't cut much flare, it does prevent the exposed front element to some extent.