Why am I not thrilled with the 17-35 f2.8?

<p>I've had the AF-S 17-35 2.8 for a few years but never used it that much. The silent wave motor packed in (and will cost £430 to repair!!!) but that's not a big deal for a wide zoom.<br>

Thing is I've never been too thrilled by the performance. Have I got a bad sample, and is there anything obvious that could be out of alignment etc.?<br>

For example it's nowhere near as good as the 50 1.8af at either f2.8 or f4 - is this a surprise?<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>I've thoroughly enjoyed this lens on a DX format. The 50mm f/1.8 is one of the sharpest and most perfect color and contrast controlled lenses you can buy (though inexpensive). So the comparison between a sweet prime and an aging zoom is not apples to apples. But you possibly have a bad sample. I've experienced this with having owned many 60mm Micros before I got a good one, and the same with a 50mm f/1.2.</p>

<p>I have only used one sample of the 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S, mine. I think it is an excellent lens. I have pointed out a few times that I have tested 6 different copies of the 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S; they are so consistent that I tend to dismiss those discussion about bad samples.<br>

I have no idea why Steve is not trilled with his lens. However,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For example it's nowhere near as good as the 50 1.8af at either f2.8 or f4 - is this a surprise?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Comparing the 17-35 to a 50mm/f1.8 is totally meaningless. There isn't any overlap between their focal length range.</p>

 

<p>I've used only one sample of the lens and it was beyond exceptional.</p>

<p>What exactly is wrong with it's performance?</p>

<p>Shun, I tested the 50 and the 17-35 with the subject covering the same amount of the frame (ie moving the camera further back for the 50mm shot). It's not exactly the same of course but it's a long way from meaningless - you can still judge relative sharpness.<br>

Peter, it's just not as sharp as I thought it should be considering all the amazing things I've heard about it (including in your post!)<br>

Here's the test shots.<br>

Steve</p>

<div></div>

<p>Here's the 50</p><div></div>

<p>And here's a real world example. Think it was 1/125 f4.<br>

Am I just expecting too much?<br>

Steve</p>

<div></div>

<p><em>What exactly is wrong with it's performance?</em></p>

<p>If we were talking about cars, I'd suggest looking at the "nut" behind the wheel. What I mean to say is that technique is the limiting factor for the performance of any lens that hasn't been bounced down the stairs - careful composition and focus, a good tripod and smooth release.</p><div></div>

<p>It is one of my 'always carry' lenses it's so good.<br>

Conni</p>

<p>Edward, it can't be bad technique when you've got a locked-off shot with 2 lenses and one looks OK but the other one doesn't!<br>

And a lens doesn't have to be "bounced down the stairs" to have issues. People have lenses brand new out of the box that are out of alignment etc. and not performing anything like as good as they should. Just trying to find out whether mine has some of problem or not. Any more useful suggestions to contribute?<br>

<br />Steve</p>

 

<p>Steve, on the image you posted at 3:37pm, the subject seems to be a DVD type box. At 35mm, my estimate is that you captured that image from about 2 feet away from the subject. The 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S is not a macro lens. I wouldn't expect a wide angle to perform that well from such a close distance. When you used the 50mm, naturally you were farther away from the subject. That was why I said this type of comparison is unfair and meaningless.</p>

<p>Your other image captured inside a gym seems to be with a D300S based on the EXIF data. The focus seems to be at/near infinity and the far away background looks quite good. However, the people holding the British flag were much closer to the camera and that is why they are somewhat out of focus.</p>

<p>So far, there is no reason for me to believe that there is anything wrong with your lens.</p>

<p>No, the focus was on area around the flag.<br>

The shots of the box were at about 3 and 4.5 feet, both what I'd call medium close, so a fair-ish test. But the reason I did it is that I wasn't that thrilled with it on more distant shots either.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>With my FX body (D700), it always performs excellently and I love it and carry it all the time together with 24-70. Those two are, for me, "must" lenses for my FX body. Maybe your example needs a bit of AF Fine Tune adjustment?</p>

<p>Thanks Ken, that has worked for my 85 1.4, but as I said the AF doesnt work on my 17-35!<br>

I've never been a massive zoom fan, was thinking of maybe getting a 35 prime, maybe the 1.4 or maybe the Zeiss f2. Also tempted by the 21mm f2.8 Zeiss, pricey though.<br />Steve</p>

 

<p>AF Fine Tune doesn't work perfectly for zoom lenses, you are right. If you so feel, 35mm 1.4 AIS is also a wonderful lens, I have one and I can vouch, as long as you won't miss wider than 35mm..... But then again, if you go that way, AF 35mm f/2 is much less pricey and you also can get 24 or 28 primes with the similar budget. <br>

As for me, I am happy with my several-year-old 17-35 and its convenience as a zoom is sometimes priceless on walkabout. YMMV.</p>

<p>The lens clearly has something wrong with it in that it won't AF, even if we're all trying to figure out if it's soft or not. I'd send it in for repair and re-alignment, myself. Then if I still didn't like it, it would be an easier sell than if it were broken.</p>

<p> I don't know, I use it on both Dx and Fx and it's been a great lens. Now with the 24-80 I keep that on the D700 and often use the 17-35 on the D200. </p>

<p >Steve, I have a few questions and comments on your test images:</p>

<ol>

<li>

The entire frame from a D3 should have 4256 x 2832 pixels. Somehow your first two samples have 4272 x 2828 pixels. Have those images been edited and do they represent the entire original frame out of the camera?

</li>

<li>

The EXIF data indicated you used 1/10 sec and 1/15 sec without flash. That is a major no no for any lens test. 1/15 sec is the shutter speed that is most prone to vibration due to the mirror slap and shutter opening. Were you using a tripod with mirror lock up or exposure delay?

</li>

<li>

For the indoor gym image, the problem is simply wrong focusing. The focus is definitely not on the flag since none of the girls on either side of the flag is in focus. However, all the lettering in the background looks quite good.

</li>

</ol>

<p>When you have the repair done to the autofocus motor in the lens, the repair service can also check the element alignment and adjust the accuracy of the autofocus.</p>

<p>The lens should be dead on when you get it back.</p>

<p>Manual focus in the finder of a crop camera like the D300 is not easy to do with precision. I should think that you want to know both that the lens is back to factory spec on sharpness and element alignment and to have the convenience and efficiency of being able to autofocus with one of the best autofocus cameras on the planet earth.</p>

<p>I'd say to fix it. Test it. Enjoy it.</p>

<p><< I've had the AF-S 17-35 2.8 for a few years but never used it that much. >></p>

<p>I think the key is to just go and use it, instead of testing with made up scenarios. It is worth a fix, even if to sell it at the end.</p>

<p>I used it a lot when I shot film. I always felt safe when I had this lens on the camera - because I trusted it enough to know that if the results were lacking, it would have to do with something other than the lens. Some of the images shot with this lens had won awards. I am not using it much these days only because the range overlaps with the 24-70 and other wide angle DX zooms.</p>

<p>even on a tripod, it's just hard to do a test at 1/10 and 1/15 sec without flash. these variables result to vibration due to mirror slap as shun mentioned.</p>

<p>in the real-world sample, the letters on the banner on the officials' table are sharp. even with huge misalignment of the elements of the lens, if the focus was on the flag, it wouldn't be that off.</p>

<p>and i'm afraid to ask more simple focusing questions. but then again, i'm biased to nikon lenses not having that big of a problem....................but you know also sometimes it's hard to train the eyes of a purist prime person. steve did say he likes and prefer primes :-)</p>

<p>btw, i still have mine and still happy with it. i bought it a long time ago for my D70 when i first ventured into shooting weddings and other events. proved to be short so it's a studio lens now. i hope you get the problem solved. it's a great lens.</p>

<p>430 pounds, $656 ...??? Thats ridiculous. Are they installing a solid gold motor or something ? I assume you are in England as you have quoted in UK pounds. I would investigate other repair centres abroad, or even back to Japan if I were you. At that price (is the VAT included or is that more on top ?) is it worth it ? As you are not happy with the lens anyways, you are better off selling it 'as is', with the faulty motor and getting something for it. You can buy another good second hand one for about the price of the repair, and you'll be better off pocket-wise because you got some return on the faulty one.</p>

<p>Thanks for the replies, much appreciated.<br>

Shun, I've no idea why they are not showing all the pixels. They haven't been cropped, just exported from Aperture. As for focus, why would I have focussed on the background? I do know a bit about focussing, I've been a professional wildlife cameraman for BBC and others for the last 15 years using lenses equivalent to 2500mm on a daily basis, all manual focus, so I'm kind of OK at it!<br>

As for the test shots and shutter speed/vibration, that's a red herring. If it was a single shot with one lens then yes it could be a factor, but they are side by sides and only one lens is soft and yet the shutter speed is the same, and this happened every time - it would be a massive coincidence if all the shots on one lens were soft due to shutter speed and all the others were OK!<br>

David, Peter, I could have it repaired but at £430 it seems a bit insane. Peter, I'm using it mostly on the D3.<br>

Mary, I'm only testing it 'cos I wasn't that thrilled with it in real world use.<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>I think you are being quite unfair here. This lens is a "hall of famer" from Nikon. Mine is as good as it gets for a lens. I would say the issue is the silent wave motor which could quite possibly be the issue giving you soft focus. Did you buy it new? If not it may have been dropped or knocked prior to you owning or even while you owned it.<br>

Please dont denigrate lenses or cameras, especially if they are on the way to the repair shop. BTW I agree with Shun, there is no comparison with 50mm 1.8, different focal lengths. In my experience, the 17-35 is as sharp as it gets, MTF charts rate this as the sharpest of the Nikon WA zooms.</p>

<p>Steve, as long as your images represent the entire frame, that is fine.<br /><br />Now, I have captured the attached image to simulate your test shot. I taped a DVD box onto the wall. I picked this particular DVD box because it is all cardboard; there is no transparent protection plastic on top that might create glare. My box occupies roughly the same area in the frame as yours. My image is indeed 2832 x 4256, which is what is expected from the D3/D700 sensor.<br /><br />I put my 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S on my D700, which is has the same sensor and electronics as the D3. I set the lens to 35mm, f4 also, and I used live view on the D700 to carefully focus manually around the area with all the words, e.g. around the name "Thomas Hampson" a bit to the lower right of the center. Since my sensor plane wasn't entirely parallel to the subject, the rest of the frame might not be as sharp. To line that all up from such a close distance would have taken a lot of time.<br /><br />My lens indicated that the subject is a tiny bit more than 2 feet away, but certainly less than 0.7 meter. That is why I think your claim that your subject distance being 4, 5 feet is way off. 2 feet is too close to expect great results from a regular lens that is not optimized for macro. Still, I think my image is very sharp around the area I focused to.<br /><br />Again, my settings are also 35mm, f4. However, I focused manually with live view. My primary source of light was an SB-900 and my shutter speed was 1/250 sec with little ambient light. The flash essentially freezes all vibration, eliminating that concern.<br /><br />I think even at a very unfair distance of 2 feet, my 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S still generates very fine results at 35mm, f4. If you cannot achieve such results with yours, either there is something wrong with your lens or there is something wrong with your test methodology. Unfortunately, it is known that AF-S motors will fail over time. If you need to get the AF motor fixed anyway, you might as well let the technician calibrate your lens.</p><div></div>