Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8

<p>I intend to get the above lens, but have read many negative reviews, but more positives, however, they are all 3-4 years old. The one I have on hand has a serial No. 423xxx, which means it is most likely produced in 2007 or later. I therefore assume that the problems with front and back focus and softness from f/2.8-8 has been solved. Are there somebody with experience for this lens with serial Nos. 423xxx and highter? I have it on hand at USD 1,450 "only".</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have it on hand at USD 1,450 "only".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Is it new or used? Is $1450 such a great deal even new? </p>

<p>Get the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 (check the reviews) and spend the rest on a photo trip somewhere. Just an idea...</p>

<p>Hmm...you sure Mr. Christensen has a DX cam, Daniel? </p>

<p>As always it depends on the intended use. So I can only comment in general terms.</p>

<p>I like my 17-35mm Nikkor - it is a good companion for the 24-70mm. I like to have the overlap in this range from 24-35mm.</p>

<p>One advantage is that I can use a pol filter (same thread as the 24-70). At the wide end a pol filter will give uneven effects but this is true for all lenses covering such a wide angle.</p>

<p>I like the focal length range for my type of shooting - your application may be different.</p>

<p>When I use it for people "environmental portraits" edge to edge sharpness at f2.8 is sufficient for my needs and for landscapes I usually stop down at least a bit - so no problem there either. Center sharpness and contrast are superb.</p>

<p>Distortion is relevant especially at the wide end but it can be mostly (not completely due to complex curvature) corrected in PP. This is also true for some minor CA that can be corrected in PP.</p>

<p>All in all a great lens for me and I would go for it again today.<br>

I cannot comment on the price.</p>

<p>Thanks for your responses.<br>

I have both D700 and D300 with 24-70 and 70-200, and I intend to use it mainly on D700 for street portraits and occasionally landscape (do not have this within a reasonable distance from Saigon).<br>

I have seen this lens priced up to USD 1,955, for which reason I thought it was a good offer for a brand new, but still expensive!<br>

WS - It seems that my use will be identical to yours, so with some new lessons in PP I will go for it.<br>

For info Daniel I just returned from 3 weeks roundtrip of Cambodia, so I think the family expect me to wait a bit with the next photo trip, but it has been planned.<br>

Thanks all of you and have a nice long week-end.</p>

<p>The 17-35 is a GREAT lens for full-frame.</p>

<p>Good point, Leslie...showing off my beginners badge. : )<br>

Cambodia! What a neat deal. In that case, I'd say take the family somewhere!</p>

 

<p>Erik:</p>

<p>I use this lens on a D700 and I love it. There were two series of this lens, mine is the earlier one, s/n US218XXXX. You can tell which series by inspecting the underside of the lens: the earlier ones will read "Silent Wave Motor ED IF" whereas I think the newer version simply says "SWM" (someone correct me if I'm wrong). Make sure the focus motor does not squeak.<br>

Enjoy the lens!</p>

<p>Peter</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I intend to get the above lens, but have read many negative reviews</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is news to me. As far as I know, the 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S has always been considered to be one of Nikon's best wide angle lenses. The newer 14-24mm/f2.8 AF-S seems to be a little sharper in the range they overlap. I have both lenses and have owned the 17-35 since 2001.</p>

<p>There are of course occasionaly bad reviews on any lens, but you know not all reviews on the web are trust worthy. The main issue for the 17-35 is that its AF motor may begin to squeel after 7, 8 or close to 10 years. Eventually the motor may need to be replaced, but that is somewhat a common problem among older AF-S lenses.</p>

<p>I have not seen any negative review for this lens either, and I browse web a lot.<br>

All lenses have some limitations, that could be exploited by inexperienced use or use beyond the sanity.<br>

Examples of possible reviews would be from e.g. picking at max zoom rate on a computer display, not using the lens properly, or making unsharp pictures, having lens dirty, not understanding the picture content, or just having too many beers at the time, etc. you name it.</p>

<p>having the 24-70mm, i would get instead the 12-24mm, nikon or tokina (the latter said to be better).<br>

but just to add, the 17-35mm is a gem. i only replaced it with the 17-55mm for the need of the extra reach when i shoot weddings and events for my D200 then. but i'm surprised it's still that expensive.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>having the 24-70mm, i would get instead the 12-24mm, nikon or tokina</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Nikon and Tokina 12-24mm are f4 DX lenses. If you want a DX wide and can afford the Nikon, now I would get the newer 10-24mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S DX instead. However, I assume that the OP needs FX coverage. The 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S is intended for FX sensor/35mm film.</p>

<p>I have read negative comments on the 17-35mm right here on this forum, but I have read negative comments on just about any camera and any lens. All it takes is on person posting. Whether you trust (or value) that person's opinion is another matter.</p>

<p>Hi, i used a friend's 17-35 for two weddings, along side a sigma 20 1.8 (in one ocasion). The nikon has a very fast and precise autofocus, is sharp starting at f/2.8 especially al close range and very sharp elswhere. The only issue is the rather high vignetting at f/2.8 and soft extreme corners, when used for landscape (but you wouldn't use f/2.8 at landscape anyway). For events and street on full-frame, it is close to ideal.<br />I use it at f/2.8-f/4 with off-camera flashes, and the flash spot it makes is perfect, no exagerated flare, just right.<br />Compared to the sigma, it is worse at f/2.8 but at least on par at other apertures. Another problem it has is size/weight. It is almost a big chunk of crafted metal filled with glass, so it is very heavy and quite large.</p>

<p>Example:</p><div></div>

<p>What about new 16-35/4VR Nikkor? It's a pro grade lens, very sharp, delivers good IQ. You can easily correct its distorsion with PS. You can get a new one for less money. I have some bad experience buying used pro lenses. Well, it's "only" a f/4 lens.</p>

<p>You can also look at Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 as a very cheap alternative. It is a pretty decent lens for its price.</p>

<p>gurbally, that lens will be no good on FX.</p>

<p>The Tamron 17-35mm f2.8-4 SP Aspherical zoom is superb. Slight vignetting at 17mm. Sharp and contrasty on my D700. </p>

<p>i shot the 17-35mm lens for many years and never once had a complaint from a client. for a zoom lens, it's very good. </p>

<p>Mine's S/N 406688 and says "Silent Wave Motor". A decent lens. I mostly manual focus it. Like it better on FX than DX.</p>

<p>I just bought the 17-35 and shoot it with my D700. I will never part with it and it is on my camera 99% of the time. </p>

<p>I use one on a D3 and it's excellent.</p>

<p>In fact, I sold a 24-70 2.8 Nikkor and bought this. I find the ergonomics better. Hated the 24-70 feel although it works fine.</p>

<p>The 17-35 is a fabulous lens. It does overlap with the 24-70 though, but not a bad combo at all especially on a full frame Nikon.</p>

<p>Erik,<br>

My wide lens experience started with Tokina 21-24 on my D200, later Nikkor 12-24, then Nikkor 17-35.<br>

I kept 17-35 now exclisively used it for the past 3 years in Hawaiin beaches for sun rise, and sunset shots.<br>

Just great for such landscapes. Clear and detailed scenes on full frame especially across the whole scenes. Of course, I used Nikon CPL filter (77mm: thin version) Tokina and Nikkor 12-24 were almost same, yet Tokina was a bit better controlled on Sunset flare than Nikkor 12-24.<br>

But 17-35 is even a lot better to shoot at Sun than Tokina 12-24 on D200 and Full frame bodies as well!<br>

Excellent flare control and no ghosting, or vignetting alone is worth keep 17-35 all the time for my aforementioned landscape shots.</p>

<p>Sunny</p>

<p> </p>