Jump to content

Nikon 17-35 mm


sukumaran_r

Recommended Posts

<p>I'am keen on purchasing a Nikon 17-35 mm lens for use with my D 700 full format camera. Before I buy I'am keen to hear of experiences (positive and negative) from my colleagues in the Nikon forum of using this lens on a D 700. My other lenses include the legendary Nikon 50mm/1.4 and Nikon 70-200mm. Thank you.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Sukumaran,</p>

<p>My experiences with the D700 and 17-35mm AF-S Nikkor is nearly all good. I'm mainly comparing it's performance to the 12-24mm DX Nikkor I once used. The 17-35mm has acceptably sharp corners on the D700 and at 17mm does not produce the same degree of perspective distortion that the 12 -XXmm or 18-XX/Xmm models tend to. I have a handfull of Ai and AF-D primes in the 14-35mm range, subjectively speaking, the Nikkor 17-35mm zoom is at least as sharp as all of these primes incl. the 24mm f/2.8 AiS The 17-35mm AF-S will take filter holders and ND grads etc and will not vignette at 17mm if you use a wide angle 77mm adapter piece.</p>

<p>The 17-35mm Nikkor is also quite good at shooting into brightly backlit scenes and even into the sun but will produce just a small green flare with the sun inside the frame. You can expect it to re-produce similar contrast and colour saturation as the 70-200mm VR lens but the bokeh on the 17-35mm lens is flat compared to the 70-200mm.</p>

<p>Needless to say the bulid quality is up to Nikon professional spec. I expect to have my 17-35mm lens with me for a long time as I take it along most times in pref. to a set of primes as it is not too heavy a lens to cart around - for my liking anyway.....</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>You're not going to hear too many negatives on this lens. The thing that comes up is the lens is subject to squeak when focusing after a number of years. But not all do - i think the ones that sit around are more likely. </p>

<p>Everything Matthew said is true. I loved this lens on my D200 and D300. I need wide for my living, so i bit the bullet and got the 14-24mm early in 2008. Then i got the D700. Sadly, my 17-35mm wasn't get used as much as it used to, but trust me when i tell you that I got some stunning images with it. The color and contrast are marvelous. Expect to pay a lot as excellent copies are going on *bay for over $1300. I think I'm going to sell mine and put the money towards a Zeiss 35m f/2 as I don't really need AF to shoot interiors and that lens can pretty much beat out anything at that focal length. But I'll try to stay on topic.</p>

<p>For your needs on the D700, this lens makes perfect sense to go with your 50mm/1.4 and the 70-200mmVR. I have both of those lenses as well and you'll be ready for almost anything. The 14-24mm is as amazing as advertised, but it's not for most shooters. Believe me that 17mm on FX is Super Wide. </p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have used this lens for many years now. Its optical performance has been fine...I'm not a hugh fan<br>

of wide angle lenses. Its very sharp. Excellent contrast. Consistent with "Nikon color".<br>

AFS is very fast. Build quality is very good. But...they do sqeek. Of all my AFS lenses this is the only<br>

one that sqeeks. It usually does this on the first dozen focus cycles then gets quiet as you would<br>

expect from an AFS lens. Mine just developed one tiny little problem. When I zoom from 17mm to 35mm<br>

it will make a very (very!) slight "click" noise just as I pass the 24-28mm area. Its no big deal...its just a very very faint click sound. Nothing is loose, all works fine so I will probably never address it.<br>

All in all its very worthy of its internet fame.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>It is a great lens on FX - much better than the 70-200mm. The corners are not perfect but they are good enough whereas the same cannot be said for the 70-200mm. If you use filters it is the lens to have as the 14-24mm can't take any (I owned one for about 3 months before giving up on it).</p>

<p>Build quality is first rate and it is probably my most used - certainly is when I am doing landcapes.</p><div>00T6NY-126017684.thumb.jpg.297ca405e9565eb3da460d5d4b34b9d6.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>A very impressive lens. Perfect image quality except for the extreme wide end in the very corners but still quite acceptable there. You need two f-stops to get perfect IQ at 17 mm in the very corners.</p>

<p>I always use it with hood and can attest good contrast, protection against flair and ghosting. Only few primes in the very wide range are better here (say the 20mm f3.5 or the 28mm f2.0).</p>

<p>The range on full frame is perfect for me. Complements the 24-70mm with a convenient overlap.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Its new version could be out any time, so you better wait.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wonder who is your source of this information? And how long do people need to wait for this new version; would that be 3 months, 6 months, 1 year or 5 years? When you ask people to wait, you'd better provide some idea how long this wait is going to be.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>"Its new version could be out any time, so you better wait."</p>

<p>Yes it could. We do not know the future. The sky could drop on us any minute - though it is not very likely. Chances are there will never be a new version but I do not know just as everybody else. I bought my 17-35 a year ago and heard comments about a new version. Until today I used the lens quite often and must say I like the results.</p>

<p>I personally see no reason for a new version. But perhaps someone could keep the 17-35 in the same box with a 14-24. With a little luck we would get a a new breed 14-35 tack sharp across into the corners without distortion and flat front lens to use a 77mm filter with electronic contacts. Via the contacts the D3 and D3x control the pol filter to turn into the right angle and switch itself off beyond 28mm ^^. Just speculating :-)</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>This is all good information. Hitherto, I've been a fly on the wall monitoring this thread, but I do have an interest in the 17-35 myself. So follow-up question for those of you who are intimately familiar with it: how does it do with filters? By this, I mean are there vignetting issues or does it require the ultra-thin variety?</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...