Gspeed Loc: Rhinebeck, NY

I have the “D” version of this lens on my D610. If I want to upgrade to a Nikor full frame lens that is better quality in this approximate range of vision, is there a Nikor lens you can recommend? Not sure if the “G” version is FX.

Thank you in advance,
Eileen

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

A significant jump in size and cost for another FX lens is the Nikon 16-35mm f/4 AF-S VR G.

A great source of lens options, detailed reviews, and technical details are provided at Ken Rockwell's site, including your current version and the newer G (also FX) lens:

https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikkor.htm#af18

tcthome Loc: NJ

I don't know your lens but in it's length 16-35, f4 is pretty good. I own & use the 14-24, f2.8 G ED which I like a lot. A higher quality lens than the 16-35 but, you loose the 35mm length. The 14-24 needs a special filter holder if you use them which will add to the cost & should be a consideration if you think you might want one & use filters.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

What makes you think it is not a full frame lens? Actually it is. G means that it does not have an aperture ring.

This lens seems to outperform the Nikkor 6-35 F2.8 as far as sharpness is concerned. This may better inform your decision to stay where you are or get a different lens.

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-18-35mm-f3-5-4-5g

I would stay with it, unless you want something wider at the wide end and slightly less wide at the long end, in which case the Tamron 15-30 F2.8 could work, for $1000.

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-18-35mm-f3-5-4-5g

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Rockwell is a comedian and entertainer, and has been known to "review" stuff he's never even touched.

KR's own words from the "about" page on his website:

"I continue to do this site all by myself for fun — probably the last remaining 1990's for-fun website that hasn't sold out to other interests. To use words of Ansel Adams on page 193 of his autobiography, this site is my "aggressive personal opinion," and not a "logical presentation of fact." This website is a work of fiction, entirely the product of my own imagination and personal opinion.

I am this site's only author. I have no one to proofread, spell check or fact check for me, so there will always be errors and omissions. Apparently the world finds my opinions very useful, but remember, they are the opinions of one man. I have a big sense of humor, and do this site to entertain you (and myself), as well as to inform and to educate. I occasionally weave fiction and satire into my stories to keep them interesting. I love a good hoax. Read The Museum of Hoaxes, or see their site. A hoax, like some of the things I do on this website, is done as a goof simply for the heck of it by overactive minds as a practical joke. Even Ansel Adams kidded around when he was just a pup in the 1920s by selling his photos as "Parmelian Prints." I have the energy and sense of humor of a three-year old, so remember, this is a personal website, and never presented as fact. I enjoy making things up for fun, as does The Onion, and I publish them here.

I've been adding to this site since 1999. This means that many of these pages, including this one, are over twenty years old. I can't possibly go back and update everything magically as the world turns. Read, enjoy, have fun, and take everything in the spirit in which it's shared."

Personally, I would not want to suggest someone base a $1000 purchase decision on the rantings of a person with the "energy and sense of humor of a three-year-old" unless you yourself are trying to be funny.

Photography Life and Optical Limits (and many others) are usually more reliable.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Well, it's you against EVERYONE ELSE. Good luck with that ...

BTW - I don't know if I should be flattered that the small group of admirers that snidely respond to my posts has grown again by one.

JohnD3 Loc: Raleigh, NC

I am using the "G" version of this lens on my D610 and have found it to be excellent (in fact, as sharp in focus as Ken Rockwell indicates it to be) and most certainly a full frame lens. My general "walk around" lens is a 28-300 which I find to be all encompassing but a bit soft in its more extreme range. On a recent trip I changed out the 28-300 for the 18-35, upon editing those photos I found that some of the distant photos I had taken could be cropped (magnified) multiple times with no loss of clarity (in fact details I had missed in the original became very clear).

My original reason for purchasing this lens was because of its wide angle range to do photos of our beach condo, presentation to potential renters, I am finding greater and greater use of its upper range clarity/sharpness for general photos. Looking forward to doing more landscape work with it.