After much deliberation I finally decided to purchase the new 18-35mm G lens for my D800 instead of the fixed F4 or faster F2.8 lens.So far, I am amazed at how sharp this lens is.  Also it produces great output on the D800.  Here are a few shots, all taken today and processed in Lightroom.More on my blog for anyone interested.I think this is going to be my favorite lens, and I have quite a few to chose from

Looks good to me! Interesting perspectives with the dancers, sharp and vibrant colours.I had the last version for a while and that was quite good on DX except wide open!Nikon don't seem to do reasonably priced wide angles, many of the cheaper versions have too much distortion, even the 35mm f1.8 prime is slightly distorted. and the 24-70 at 24mm.John

Thanks.  The lens is really sharp and I think it is the cheapest of the FX wide angle zooms.From what I have read the F4 VR lens and the F2.8 lens are not quite as sharp, yet more than twice the weight (and cost).

steddyman wrote:Thanks.  The lens is really sharp and I think it is the cheapest of the FX wide angle zooms.From what I have read the F4 VR lens and the F2.8 lens are not quite as sharp, yet more than twice the weight (and cost).Hard to make a direct comparison between the 18-35mm and for example the 14-24mm F/2.8G. There is a (specific) reason people choose for the faster and bettter build F/2.8 version extreme wide angle lens or the constant F/4 version.My 14-24mm F/2.8G is extremely sharp in relation to such construction, if it is worth the money depends on your need. for me it is. I think the 18-35mm is a fantastic lens for it's money...but which lens isn't lately?All comes down to specific characteristics and build but the 'common' image quality of all all lenses are exceptional well. Especially when taking into account that many (most) people use their images for web usage and reducing the file sizes to such extend that it's hard to see anything of it's (specific) quality, all looking good online.Michel

I was referring to the 16-35mm f4 vr and the 17-35mm f2.8 which were the other two I considered.The 14-24mm I'm sure more than justifies the cost With an extra 4mm of reach and tack sharp.This was one of the articles that helped me decide.http://aboutphography.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/nikon-18-35mm-f3.html

steddyman wrote:I was referring to the 16-35mm f4 vr and the 17-35mm f2.8 which were the other two I considered.The 14-24mm I'm sure more than justifies the cost With an extra 4mm of reach and tack sharp.This was one of the articles that helped me decide.http://aboutphography.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/nikon-18-35mm-f3.htmlsorry, did not know the 17-35mm was still new for sale...It is not made any more. I've used the lens in the past myself, when I sold it I used the money to purchase the 14-24mm. The 17-35mm is a very good lens, but wide open the 14-24mm is absolutely ahead by means of image quality.Michel

ThanksYes, it was a used 17-35mm I was considering.  It isn't available new.I didn't consider the 14-24 because it is 3x the weight and 2x the cost of the 18-35 and 18mm is plenty wide enough for my uses.  I don't really see wide apertures as a benefit in super wide lenses since I either use the for street photography or landscapes and in both those instances I will usually be using f8.