Need advice of primes to replace 17-35/2.8

<p>I have been using <strong>17-35/2.8</strong> for years and very satisfied with the results especially at wide open. But this is not a lens that you want to handhold all day.<br>

For both casual and formal family events, I want something that is lighter, more compact, cheaper, less "noticed", and less "hassled" being extra careful of expensive and heavy lens hanging over my neck. I need something lighter that I just can swing it sideway so my hands are free to do everything else.<br>

Come up with these AF primes that fit my category:<br>

<strong>AF 24/2.8D </strong><br>

<strong>AF 28/2.8D </strong><br>

<strong>AF 35/2.0D</strong><br>

Other than these, I find it out of my budget.<br>

What do you think of these three lenses will match legendary 17-35/2.8 in term of image quality: sharpness, CA, falloff, distortion, etc...<br>

Would I be disappointed? or it will live up to my expectation?<br>

Please advise...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>DX or FX?</p>

<p>It's DX. D300. I own other primes 50/1.4D, 85/1.8D. I also own 12-24/4 which I find it useful and lightweight but it's just too slow for handheld shooting.</p>

<p>On a D300 same as me..... I am not trying to replace my 17-55 but I notice that since I bought a Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 and a 35 f/2 my 17-55 is not being used as much as before. I would recommend the 35 f/2 and maybe you could get a wide zoom like Tokina or Nikon 12-24 f/4 or Sigma 10-20. They are zooms but very compact compare to the 17-35 and 17-55. just a thought!</p>

<p>My 20 cents worth says the 17-35mm is sharper than both the AF-D 35 f/2 and the AF-D 28 f/2.8. I have the 17-35mm zoom and both these primes and honestly, I have found the zoom sharper than these two primes (D700)</p>

<p>I also have the AiS 24mm f/2.8 which is equally as sharp across the frame as my 17-35mm......... If you're keen to go lightweight / unobtrusive then on DX my preference was the 35mm f/2, felt quite natural on DX. It has the least C/A of my wider primes andIi always found it easier to move closer to close the frame up tight than to back off and widen the frame if you get my drift....... BTW the 28mm and 35mm focus closer than the 24mm.</p>

<p>24mm is about in the middle, more wide than not, has a good reputation. i don't know how big 28mm is, but 24mm is not bad and at 1.5x it's 36mm, so still wide</p>

<p>and better wider that you can crop than not including enough. 17-35mm is my only zoom [besides 50mm/1.8 and 105/2.8] so i need it, and for those focal length i sure do need a zoom, focusing landsapes or city areas i a lot better with this zoom</p>

<p>I recently compared my 17-35/2.8 AFS against the all MF AiS 20/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/2.0 lenses on the D700. I was expecting the 17-35 to trounce these old primes. It didn't. In general I found the primes to equal the zoom in contrast and sharpness. Any differences at any given f/stop between the prime and zoom were minor. I was really surprised how poor to average the zoom was towards the edges/corners of the full frame sensor.<br>

Roger...</p>

<p>The Nikkor 28mm f2 AIS should also be considered. I am happy with the Nikkor 20mm f2.8 AF-D, 28mm f2 AIS and 35mm f2 AIS. A used 35mm f1.4 AIS is also a consideration but pricey. I had a Nikkor 24mm f2.8 AF-D for DX and it was one of my favorite lense's. Medium wide on DX coupled with your 50mm might just be the ticket.</p>

<p>It wasn't one of your three options but you should take a look at the 20mm f/2.8... it gets mixed reviews here in the forums but I've had mine for about 3 months now and love the compact size and field of view on my DX sensor.</p>

<p>I haven't used the other three primes you mention but I would be curious to see how the sharpness compares. Between my 20, 55 Micro and 180 (all 2.8's) the 20 is the least sharp but it still comes through with some nice shots and honestly its on my camera 80% of the time.</p>

<p>I chose the 20 when I looked at the exif data for my first months use of the kit 18-55 lens and saw that the majority was shot at 18mm. When you use your 17-35 what is the most used focal length? I'd let that guide my pick of primes!</p>

<p><a href="http://flickr.com/groups/nikon20mmf28/">(Link to 20mm f/2.8 Flickr group)</a></p>

<p>Your choice should mainly be based on the focal length you need. A prime is not going to give you both 17mm and 35mm. Unless you are getting multiple primes, you will have to give up a bunch of focal lengths. Can you live with that? If not, staying with the 17-35mm/f2.8 may be your best choice. At least I don't find it all that heavy.</p>

<p>Though important, focal length is not major factor in the decision making right now cause I mostly use it for family events where I have freedom zooming with my feet, moving forward and backward a couple feet should cover the milimeter focal length differences.<br>

I am more concerned with the IQ. IF those primes can't even match the IQ 17-35 produces, then I'll stick with 17-35.</p>

 

<p>What about keeping the lens and using a second, lighter camera? Doesn't the D90 have essentially the same IQ as the D300?<br>

Kent in SD</p>

<p>Kent, with extra $1k, I would prefer spending it over the lense<strong>s</strong>. Now you make me daydreaming.</p>

<p>If you shoot family events, first of all I kind of doubt that optical quality is all that important. Additioinally, those are not the occasions that you have a lot of time to move around or change lenses. If you indeed shoot a lot of events, the best lens for DX is the 17-55mm/f2.8, but of course that is also on the heavy side. I would look into something like a 18-70mm DX or 16-85mm DX VR that are not as heavy. A prime is not what I would use.</p>

<p>Shun, I already had 18-105 VR and although I found it good enough, it is still too slow for me, similar to the 18-70 or 16-85 you recommend above.</p>

<p>You must be misunderstanding that I am doing paid-work for somebody's else family events. To clarify, it's for my family events, so no pressure here. I have plenty of time to move around and change lenses. :)</p>

<p>I agree that IQ is not supposedly something that is very critical, but I can't downgrade from what i already had.</p>

<p>Edward, if you are getting paid to shoot family events, such as weddings, get the 17-55mm/f2.8 AF-S DX. I really don't think primes are the way to go. The so called "zoom with you feet" is for casual photographers. The moment you move, the perspective of the image changes. When you do this professionally, there is not always space or time for you to move around or change lenses. You are going to miss a lot of shots if you are busy doing something else rather than focusing on capturing the important images.</p>

<p>Stay away from the 24/f2.8 AFD for DX. I returned mine after testing it against my cheapo 18-70/3.5-4.5. The 24/f2.8 was significantly less sharp in the corners at 24mm at all apertures up to f8 (both D200 & D300).</p>

<p>The only lens I would consider for replacing the 17-35mm zoom would be the Sigma 30mm f1.4 prime which is very sharp, fast to autofocus, and is a "normal" lens in terms of perspective on a DX camera. Actually it provides the FOV of a 34mm lens, or equivalent to a 51mm lens on a FX body.</p>

<p>Sun => thanks for the info. But I heard 28/2.8 is even worse than the 24/2.8.</p>

<p>Bruce=> I have been considering this lens but the price tag doesn't allow me to do so. And It's SIGMA. But many good reviews have written about it. So I guess it is worth for me to save up.</p>

<p>Your 17-35mm f/2.8 tests extremely well, at <a href="http://www.photozone.de">www.photozone.de</a>. I would love to have one.<br>

Of the three primes you mention, i own two, and use one on my D200's and D60 a lot, that is the 35mm f/2 AF D. it is an excellent lense, but do not know if it would better your Zoom.<br>

On my D200, my 24mm AF D is not very good, re IQ & CA. It works well on a film body though.</p>

<p>Edward,</p>

<p>What makes you think people care about the size of a 17-35/2.8? If you act like a professional and get the shots efficiently, you will be practically invisible. What makes you think shuffling around changing lenses while people wait won't be noticeable? I'm suprised you don't want manual focus too.</p>

<p>In your NAS list, where are the wide-angle lenses? 24mm on a DX camera is only medium-wide. You would need a 20 and perhaps an 18 to cover your bases. Hmmm! Do you carry 6 lenses or one?</p>

<p>For social events and weddings, the less fussing [sic] around the better. Since you have a DX camera, a 17-55/2.8 would eliminate nearly all lens changes. You are getting paid for results, not show-and-tell.</p>

<p>Jay => I have read 35/2.0D is excellent performer, though not wide open, but at least it's in par with 17-35/2.8 stopped down.</p>

<p>Edward => True, people won't care about the size of the lens, but I am the one who carry it all day so I am more comfrotable with lighter and compact package the primes have, though I understand i have to compromise with the fixed focal length. I move around a lot so I purposely attach the lens hood over the 17-35 so whatever hits it, my hood is the first line of defense. The hood serves me well. Still, I prefer smaller lens.</p>

<p>In my shooting habit, I rarely go wider than 20 mm. Mostly my shots stay between 28-35mm end (yes in DX!) because my approach is to shoot in small group or single individual (in relation with space, not a portraiture approach). If I have to go wide from larger group, I have 12-24/4 readily in hand. So I am thinking, 12-24 (5% of the time), prime 30 or 35, and 50 (10% of the time) should make me move around smoothly. Rather than this combo: 12-24 and 17-55</p>

<p>I agree that 17-35mm stands out as opposed to 50mm on D300.<br>

When I don't want to stand out and the sun isn't where i need the hood, i take it off from my 105mm at times too. Some people [non photographers] just don't understand....<br>

<br /> And whenever someone pulls out a tripod that they don't have to lean over, that makes them look like they are 'professional' and/or working for 'newspaper' :-), i believe that's the public image.</p>

<p>Robert => These days smaller tools with exceptional performance are way to go. Ever heard 'Less is more"? :)</p>

<p><br />I even consider Olympus E-420 (marketed as world smallest DSLR) and its tempting compact 25/2.8 zuiko pancake lens. But I have read its ISO performance is below par compared to current performers. A lot of people are wonderin' when Nikon will ever make digital rangefinder with 1/3 of leica price with high ISO performance like D3. It certainly solves my problem immediately.</p>

<p>Edward I understand that sometimes you just want to go lighter. Me too. When I'm not light it's the 17-35/2.8 and the 85/1.8AF-D When I'm light it's either the 24/2.8 AIS, 50/1.4 AIS & the 85/1.8AF-D or the 28/2 AIS, 50/1.4 AIS & the 85/1.8AF-D. As you can see I go back and forth with the 28 and the 24. I have late versions of both those lenses with SIC on the glass. Love 'em both. The new AF-D wide angles just don't do a thing for me once you've had a manual AIS lens in your hands. Know what I mean?</p>