Back to the 17 mm 2.8 lens

I have a D200 and a D70 that I will use this on (mostly the D200). I am using a 18-

200, 18-70 and a 80-200 (2.8). The 18-200 and the 18-70 are fines lens, I just

want a faster one. I want to avoid fisheye. I realize that I will get some corner

effects with a 17mm, but not much. What would be the best choice to fill this

gap? A 17-35 2.8, a 17-55 2.8 or another brand? I want a faster lens. What else

should I look for in the lens? Can it be used properly on an F100? This is all for

pleasure. - Thanks.

How about the 12-24 f/4 Nikon?

 

It's pretty great really, but can't be used on the F100. only the 14-24 f/2.8 would do you

justice on both.

 

Trade the 18-200 and the 18-70 for a 17-35. It will work on both cameras and it

fantastic wide open.

I've used the 12-24 on an F100 - it's good from 20-24mm. Some say you can push it to 18mm but I'm not too sure about that. In any case, f/4 isn't considered fast.

 

I agree that going whole-hog on the 14-24 would cover everything you're looking for. If you were thinking of buying a new 17-35, the 14-24 isn't that much more.

 

But, I'm an admitted wide-angle junkie so that's why I nominate the 14-24. If I come into enough spare money that's my next lens.

IMHO the 17-35 is the lens to get. Fast, good range, takes filters and delivers great quality from what I have read. It is rather large and heavy and out of my price range though.

Jeff,

 

I too use a D200 and have a 17-35 2.8 that I first bought to use with my F100. The

17-35 has worked out great value for me, it's now given me years of faithful service

and I really like using it. I see very little corner softness using this lens on DX but

CA can be a problem wide open. Some of the samples out there may have been in

use for some years so check for signs of abuse and that the optics are clean.

Given the build quality you can be pretty confident that this lens will have stood up

to heavy use well.

 

The only caution that I'd mention is that due to CA I tend not to use this lens at f/2.8

on my D200. Since you state your main reason for getting this lens is for the extra

stop that may be worth looking into.

 

For an example of my experience with this lens you can have a look at my

comments (particularly with reference to CA) here:

 

http://www.eyeswitching.com/nikon_17-35_afs_.html

 

All the best Jeff.

Id have to say the 17-35, its a superb lens and will work on your F100 without any problem.

17-35 and 55 are only a half-stop faster than your 18-70 and 18-200 at the wide end.

 

here's another idea. The Tokina 11-16 or 12-24 (or the Nikon 12-24 I believe) will give

you something wider (only the 11-16 is faster, though) and both will work on full

frame at the "long" end. Better complement to what you have. If you buy a 17-35 or

55, you will have three lenses that overlap in the 17-35 range.

 

What are you shooting? If landscape photography, for instance, you don't need a

faster lens, just a great tripod.

I must say that I tried to prepare for FX and bought a 17-35mm f/2.8 for my D300.

Although after F/4 it is fine, at F/2.8 the CA was quite obvious in bright light and it

was soft. I sent it back to Nikon and in 2 week got it back with softness fully

corrected. The CA is still there. Not the biggest issue, but I think 17-55mm would

be better for digital and cheaper too. I prefer my 20mm prime to 17-35mm on the

D300 indoors,

 

On my F5 it is really great !!! I do not know how it performs on a D3. I hope well,

because 14-24 (with a huge naked front lens) and 24-70 does not feel like a good

combo for me - I always liked 20-35 and 80-200. But probably it will do only as well

as it does on D300m since it was really a lens designed for film.

 

I retrospect, I should have just went with 17-55 DX and added 12-24mm for those

wide shots.

 

Another idea is to get a D300, which would let you shoot your lenses at one stop

higher ISO with no IQ loss!

I am in the same boat here. Since I don't really shoot that 18-50mm range very much, I opted to just keep the 18-55mm kit lens. Optically it is pretty good, but not fast. I am planning on buying the (hopefully) soon to be released "D90.", or a D300 if that looks like a better deal after I compare the two. I anticipate either camera will shoot clean for me at ISO 1600. If so, I don't think I have much use for my three fast single focal lenses: 20mm f2.8 AFD, 28mm f1.8, 50mm f1.8. They are older design and each has some problem with CA. I've been seriously considering dumping all three and buying either the Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 or 17-55mm f2.8. The idea is that for a similar amount of money I will have a more flexible high quality zoom, and only one lens where I once had three. However, there is now a curve thrown in. Nikon also seems to be on the verge of releasing a full frame that is "affordable," sort of. (LOL!) If that happens, might the value of the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 go into the toilet pretty quickly? So, I hesitate. Any thoughts?

 

 

Kent in SD

@kent: skip the 17-55 and just get the tamron 17-50. if you dont use the 18-50 range that often and neglect your primes now, it's hard to justify the cost of a 17-35 IMO, which although regarded as optically superior, is better suited for film and FF than DX due to its limited zoom range. the tamron, on the other hand, has comparable IQ to the 17-55 at 1/3rd the cost. buy more lights with the money you save.