$1000 price difference... for what?

I'm comparing two Nikon lenses... the Zoom Super Wide Angle AF-S

Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF and the extremely similar Zoom Wide

Angle AF Zoom 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5D ED-IF Autofocus Lens.

 

The only differences I see are the 1mm difference on the wide side

of the zoom and the f/2.8 vs. f/3.5-4.5 HOWEVER... The 17-35 is

$1000 more expensive than the 18-35. And I don't see why. Can

someone explain it to me or does anyone know what the 'S' means in

AF-S Nikkor and what ED-IF is?

 

And I guess the real kicker of a question is... Is the 17-35 worth

$1000 over the 18-35???

 

THANKS!!!!

sounds like someone should head over to www.nikonlinks.com and do some research.

 

That's the great thing about the web...you can do your own research (emphasis on your own).

 

I rather suspect if you are asking this question then you wouldn't be buying the 17-35.

Is the 17-35 f/2.8 worth the extra grand? Probably because there is a BIG difference between the lenses. If you don't even know what "S" means and what variable aperture is you really need to learn about Nikon lenses (and zooms in general) so you can base your criticism on more than price and popularity.

There is little in common with them other than the similar angle of view.

 

S = Silent wave motor, which basically means that the autofocusing is faster and quieter, and you can switch from AF to manual focus just by turning the manual focus ring, whereas with plain AF lenses you need to switch the lens or camera to manual focus mode and only then can you focus manually. Many people love the AF-S feature, although it adds to the cost of the lens.

 

ED = extra-low dispersion glass, which is a category of glass materials which reduce the spectral dispersion of light in the lens, in practice it gives sharper pictures with better colour and contrast.

 

IF = internal focusing, which means that only a part of the lens groups move inside the lens to achieve focusing. In non-internal focusing lenses, the whole lens moves. RF = rear focusing, which means that the last lens groups move (closest to camera body). IF makes the lenses lighter and faster to focus but it seems to be a mixed blessing in terms of optical quality. One reason why people like IF and RF lenses is that the exterior of the lens does not move during focusing (although this is true of some non-IF lenses as well), which makes the lens perhaps more rugged and allows easier use of a polariser and graduated neutral density filters.

 

The aperture difference between f/2.8 and f/3.5-4.5 may seem insignificant but the optical quality of most f/2.8 zooms is higher than those of slower variable aperture zooms. There is also a significant difference in the quality of construction between the two lenses, which is one of the reasons why the f/2.8 is more expensive. The constant aperture of the f/2.8 makes the lens bigger since the lens has to mechanically keep the aperture constant during zooming. People who use the cameras in manual (exposure) mode love constant aperture zooms, because they are much easier to use. However, with modern post-F5 bodies, aperture is kept constant during zooming if you use the sub-command dial of the camera to set aperture, so this is a problem only when shooting at the max aperture. This particular f/2.8 zoom is a star of its class, but the 18-35 is also known as a good lens. The 18-35 is also much smaller and lighter, which may be an advantage to you.

 

Of course, only you can say what's worth $1000 for you. I like 24 mm and 35 mm primes.

Ilkka,

 

Thank you so much for your very generous and kind answer. You've answered my question completely... and then some.

 

May your life be filled with happiness and your business prosper.

 

Thanks,

Curt

<i>

That's the great thing about the web...you can do your own research

</i>

<p>

um... this is the web, and he is doing research...

<p>

Seriously, I understand your point, but this is a pretty good forum for quickly getting to the bottom of these cosmic mysteries.

No Todd, I'm afraid you don't understand. You can't just allow anyone to come here and ask things. Why, that would mean this was, like, a forum for discussing things and then, why, people might actually think they could ask (gasp) questions! That would be outrageous! You really must curb those generous impulses of yours.

I have the "cheaper one" 18-35mm. I usually use it at @ F8 or F11, I have been very pleased. If you need to shoot wide open the 17-35mm would probably suit you better.

Is the 17-35 AFS worth it?

 

Absolutely.

 

Sort of like comparing a Mercedes (the 17-35) to a Chevy (18-35).

Hey Jason, guess he told us!

I remember when I was 16 yrs old a freind of my dad was going to Japan and gave me a booklet of camera prices in Japan and I had some money from a summer job. I didn't know the difference between a 135mm f3.5 and 135mm f2.5 but the f2.5 was $20 more so I bought a bellows set with the extra $20. I rarely used the bellows set but would of loved to have that f2.5 if someone had explained it to me.

 

No need to get surly with people asking questions just becuase THEY don't know how to find facts on the net. If it bothers you that much, don't answer the question. I find this place great for not only fast answers but various opinions. Remember what it was like to be 16yrs or just the new guy.

1. Ignorant and stupid are NOT the same.

 

2. We are ALL ignorant. We're just ignorant in different areas.

Nice Joseph- I wil be using that at the next board meeting!

 

So when is one stupid, when one is ignorant in all areas?

This FORUM is so good for so many reasons. One thing we do not need, however, is anyone to suggest that some questions do not deserve to be put here or answered, especially because answers can be found somewhere else.

 

Asking questions, however simple, is how one educates him/herself. Curt's question is a good one. And all who come here for answers deserve the benefit he received.

I'm not at my home computer here so I can't give you the link (try googling "17-35 18-35 nikon af-s ed-if comparision" or something similar) but I've seen a comparison that rated the 18-35 very favorably optically compared to the 17-35. So perhaps the Chevy/Mercedes analogy isn't quite right. Especially if you're looking at doing landscapes, stopped down for hyperfocal depth of field, not needing blazing fast autofocus, and you prefer less weight and more $ in your pocket.

 

Btw, someone help me out here.. I think the comparison that I saw was on that site where the guy takes a lot of pictures of his ornate front door with the sun carving. Yes, sounds odd, but I'm sure some of you other Nikon folks have surfed over that way and can provide the link...

Brian,<P>

 

I think the review you may be refering to concerns the 28-70mm and the 35-70mm 2.8's. Here is the link: <A HREF="http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/nikon_articles/nikkor/af/70mm_shootout/index.html">http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/nikon_articles/nikkor/af/70mm_shootout/index.html</A>

<P>

Carl

Curt, I often manual focus and appreciate the brighter viewfinder image I get with the constant 2.8. I've owned the 17-35 for about a year and have no regrets. Mounted on my F100 or F3HP the combination is quite heavy, when hiking...etc...I use a belt pack for storage/quick access. If you desire a combination you could predominantly carry around your neck, the 18-35 might be more appropriate. The AFS is a nice feature, but IMO underutilized on a wide angle lens. I'm really into build quality and bright optics so the price differential was worth it to me. You might want to check out photographyreview.com for candid user feedback on both of these lenses...you'll find they're both well received.

Thanks Carl... glad I wasn't crazy. True, it was the wrong review, but wrong I can live with. I found one review <a href=http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1835.htm>here</a>, but it's not the comparison I was thinking of. Good luck...

Whenever I'm using a wide-angle I tend to use it at F8 - F16, so there's no way I'd pay $1000 extra for 2.8. I just feel that, for me, having an F2.8 is much more useful in a telephoto than a wideangle. I have the 180mm F2.8 and it's my favourite lens.

I imagine that few people have ever done a direct image quality comparison. The 17-35 has excellent build quality, and its as good or better than any Nikkor prime within its range. My wide angle prime lenses gather dust these days.

 

Brian