I have a Nikon 17-35mm AF-S Zoom-Nikkor Lens f/2.8-f/22 that I used on my Nikon N80. Should I keep it now I have a D80?

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by csfrankland, Mar 13, 2008.

  1. Hi,

    I purchased a Nikon 17-35mm AF-S Zoom-Nikkor Lens f/2.8-f/22 a year ago to use
    with my old 35mm Nikon N80. I recently converted to digital with a Nikon D80.
    Should I keep my 17-35mm Nikon lens or sell it to purchase another lens more
    suitable for digital photography? I'm not really sure.

    I could probably get back what I paid for the Nikon lens (around $900), but is
    there anything better out there for the same sort of money or should I hold onto
    this one?

    Advice much appreciated!

    Cheers.
     
  2. I would absolutely keep it, and use it for what you used to shoot with a 28-70mm. The lens is one of Nikon's best.


    Kent in SD
     
  3. I second that opinion. It's a fantastic lens and the focal length is well suited to digital photography.
     
  4. This is a legend lens. It's gold Man .
     
  5. Christopher....My 17-35 has lived on my D70, then my D200, and now my D300. The 50mm 1.8 and something long always comes along, but the 17-35 is my "serious" on-camera wide lens.

    You didn't say what other lenses you have, or how you shoot, but you can always add a 12-24mm or 10-20mm down the road if you tended to favor the 17mm end of the 17-35 on your N80.
     
  6. I faced the same situation Christopher. (as have many, many others)

    Rather than sell I decided to keep it and see how much I used it. After a while I realized I was using my 10-20 Sigma, 18-70 Nikkor and 35mm 1.4 MF Nikkor instead. I don't know if I shot 200 frames in two years with the 17-35. Still, I kept it thinking if I ever again used my F100 I'd want it.

    I held onto the 17-35 for a couple of years. Then, a month ago, I sold my F100 after which I also sold the 17-35.

    If I ever get a full frame digital D3 (unlikely) or a less expensive full frame Nikon of the future (quite likely) I plan to get the 14-24 2.8 which will, I believe, be a better digital performer and deliver that important (to me) 3mm wider view.

    FWIW, I am happy with the Sigma and it will cost you far less than what you'll get for the 17-35. Of course, if you ever plan to get that 14-24 in the future you may, like me, have to sell a kidney!
     
  7. The only reason to sell it is if it doesn't meet your needs. For my use the range and speed out weigh the limit at the long end. A 24-70mm f2.8 would cover the rest. Everything I have ever read about this lens is great. I would keep it. IMHO it makes much more sense than the 14-24 f2.8 unless you have a special wide need. If it was not so big, heavy and expensive I would have had one years ago. Alas I now have some primes in that range and the only thing I have gained is speed.
     
  8. Christopher,
    the 17-35mm 2.8 AFS is a KEEPER, agreed with all other replies.

    Instead of selling it get him a soul mate.

    <img src="http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc112/Juanjo_Viagran/BS/2337ac34.jpg">

    that's a couple made in heaven.. <3
     
  9. Sell it to me, I will give it a good home :)
     
  10. Have you considered replacing it with the Nikon 17 - 55mm f/2.8, which is a DX lens?
     
  11. Don't even consider selling it. You have a gem now, the 17-35, 28-70 and the 70-200 are a combination that can't be beat. Digital or film.
     

Share This Page