17 - 35 AFS worth the investment?

<p>Hey all! I just lost my 18 - 105 DX in the woods. Not quite sure how I managed that but whats done is done. No it was not a fantastic lens but it definitely got the job done. I primarily used it to shoot civic events in good light or stayed @ the wide end where I could maintain at least an F4 aperture with flash. So I was pretty much stuck between 18 - 24mm, which actually worked fine indoors. I will definitely be adding a FF to my D300 in the near future. So my question, is the 17 - 35 worth the money or should I just get another 18 - 105 to tie me over? Oh yes, I have no intention getting the 17 - 55DX. I refuse to spend $$ that on a DX lens. I would rather switch to canon and get the cheaper arguably better alternative. Any thoughts?</p>

<p>how bout a tamron 17-50mm f2.8? Haven't used it, but from what i've read it's as sharp as the nikon one, just not as heavy duty, and doesn't focus as fast. But it adds vr, and is lighter so that's a plus.. it costs more than the 18-105, but not nearly as much as the nikon 17-55mm f2.8.</p>

<p> nikon 17 55 2.8 is it a good lens? ,it is if you want a good lens. or not, you can buy one used for 800 to 1000, i got one mint in the boxs for 900 </p>

<p>Roman,</p>

<p>I just bought a 17-35 for my D700. I love shooting wide and it's a great lens on either FX or DX.</p>

<p>If you're primarily shooting DX, you might want to check out the 17-55, but the 17-35 is one of the best zooms Nikon has ever made and you can find them for about half the price of a 14-24 and it's a bit smaller.</p>

<p>17-35 is very good but it's not in the same league like the other pro zooms from Nikon. I agree that Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC could be a more versatile and budget solution. Yes, the AF is slow sometime and the BQ is not like Nikon, but for the money it costs offers great IQ and is a good performer in low light, indoor. It deserves a try. </p>

<p>Since you are shooting within the focal length, the 17-35mm is as good as you can get. It is a relatively big and heavy lens though; especially when compared with the 18-105mm.</p>

<p>For a cheaper option, you may want to consider the Nikon 20-35mm f2.8, though that is 2mm tighter than what you usually shoot. But if you can live with the extra 2mm, it is worth considering as it is under half the price of the 17-35mm.</p>

<p>Roman,<br>

I have a D300 and the 17-35 is on the camera most of the time. Is it worth the investment? Absolutely! The lens has a certain something for events and landscapes that is hard to describe. I've had an opportunity to shoot this lens on a D700 as well, and found it performed even better. The only time I use a different lens is for portraits (85 1.4 AFS) or macro (55 2.8 AIS).</p>

I believe that the Nikon 20-35mm f2.8 has been discontinued for some years. As for the 17-35 I have owned one for a few years and I love it and highly recommend it if it is within your budget.

<p>The 17-35/2.8 AFS is an outstanding lens - better than its predecessor, the 20-35 and better than any of the prime wide angles it replaces in terms of chromatic aberation and distortion.</p>

<p>It's only an investment and not an expense if it returns money to you. That out of the way, my 17-35mm AF-S is capable of extremely sharp and salable images. That this pro optic cost less money than an equivalent number of prime lenses that cover it's range (and that are no better), makes it a very economical lens.</p>

<p>Yeah, unless you're making money with your photography, I'd look at the Tamron version. I've a Tamron 17-35mm 2.8-4 SP Aspherical zoom, and it's excellent. Paid only $150 for it used too. Well worth looking into Tamron optics. </p>

<p >The 17-35/2.8 AFS is well-worth the going-rate and remains an excellent lens. I'd prefer to shoot it over the 12-24/4 in terms of IQ. Always happy to see it on the front of whichever film or digital body is at hand.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >'It's only an investment and not an expense if it returns money to you.' An investment could be any benefit that accrues to the investor, such as pleasure and joy…derived from viewing magnificent images. Could Merriam and Oxford be wrong?</p>

<p>Like Dave Lee, I would recommend the Tamron 17-35 zoom, although I've never used it on DX myself (only FF and FX). It's an excellent optic for all practical purposes and should be a bargain used.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>17-35 is very good but it's not in the same league like the other pro zooms from Nikon. -<strong> Mihai Ciuca</strong><br>

<strong></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>My own experience is contrary to this statement. My 17-35mm AF-S is the equal to my 70-200mm f/2.8 VR in focus speed, contrast, sharpness and colour reproduction, it only lacks the bokeh of the 70-200mm. </p>

<p>Just my 20 cents worth....... I think it's a worthwhile investment and at second hand prices for a mint-ish copy it represents excellent value for money</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree, Matthew. The lens is a stunner.</p>

<p>Conni</p>

<p>The AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8 is a fantastic lens and my personal favourite. I use it mostly for landscape work. The Nikon circular polarizer rarely leave the front of the lens.</p>

<p>It is sharp, renders beautiful colours and contrast. It performs amazingly well when shooting into the sun. No colour fringing ever observerd.</p>

<p>Something negative? Yes, corner sharpness on FX at 17mm and wide apertures is not perfect. However, this has never bothered me. When I shoot landscape I usually use a tripod and stay at f/8 or f/11. Sometimes, I get close to something and work at f/2.8 to get the background out of focus and then corner sharpness is of none importance. However, I do not really fancy the out of fokus rendering (bokeh), but this is more of a general problem for wide angle lenses. It is always possible to zoom out to 20mm to get sharp corners at all apertures.</p>

<p>The focusing on my lens makes a metallic sound, which I have heard is a common problem with this lens. Irritating, but probably not affecting IQ.</p>

<p>When you go FX you will have an even greater sensation with this lens.</p>

<p>Make sure all your filters are thin (slim), otherwise you will se them in the corners of FX.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I like the Tamron 17-35 a lot. It is inexpensive, very sharp, fast, fairly compact and light weight. The build is decent too.</p>

 

<p>Mathew and Constance are quite correct. T</p>

<p>his lens is also reported to handle flare better than the 17 - 55mm which is also a wonderful lens and too worth the cost if you want a rugged pro-lens.</p>

<p>The 17-35mm should be an exceptional lens, but if it is outside your budget and if you do not need the f/2.8 aperture, get the 18-35mm Nikon. I have one I use with my D700, and it is an excellent lens.<br>

I wish I could afford all those pro lenses, but hey, I have a family to feed and photography is only a (very serious) hobby for me, so I need to compromise.</p>

<p>the 17-35 is the only zoom that I carry with me when I go for optimal quality (together with 50 mm ZF, 85 mm AiS, 105 mm AiS and 180 mm AF). An ideal lens for travel and street photography (I use it for about 70%). Also good with polarizer<br>

IQ of "my" 17-35 is better than "my" 28-70 f2.8 (and much lighter/handier)</p>

<p>The 17-35 AFS is a fantastic lens. I have owned and used mine for around 10 years. Works beautifully on DX and is an ultra wide on FX. Built like a tank and sharp as a razor. We also own the 17-50 Tamron, this lens is just as sharp as the nikon, with comparable or slightly better build quality than the Nikon 18-55 for example. The 17-35 focusses very close but the Tamron may focus even a little closer. If I were you I would only buy the 17-35 2nd hand or the Tamron new. If you do, you will be over $1000 in front on both counts.</p>

<p>When saw the Nikon 17-35mm for sale on Craigs list, along with a D70 (not too outdated at the time), for only $800 I first thought, this must be stolen or a scam. Well I called the guy and it turned out he'd dropped it while shooting a wedding. The front threads were toast and the zoom ring was majorly stiff. He did, however say that it still shot nice sharp pictures but he wasn't willing to fork over the dough to get it fixed. I jumped, knowing I could deal with a stiff zoom for that price, and immediately drove 4 hours to Seattle to pick it up. Eventually, I took it into my local repair shop and was quoted $340 for parts and labor to get it back to new. It's been flawless ever since. Needless to say, after reselling the redundant D70 I came out with a sweeeeet deal on one of my best lenses ever. The 17-35 has been a part of many of my best photos, has earned me a bunch of money, and has been the main gun on 3 successive bodies so far, both DX and FX. If you can find a good deal on a used one, go for it. Like you said, you will be going to FX eventually so don't waste money on a DX lens. This lens will not disappoint and due to the quality it is an investment...just don't go losing it in the woods!</p>