My new, used Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF

[aaron_gauger]

I recently sold some audio equipment which gave me a budget of $1k for new

glass. I have a 50mm 1.8 that I use a lot but needed something a bit wider.

I shoot with a Nikon D200 body so given the crop factor the equivalent 83mm

limits my options for group shots. I went to my local camera shot looking

for

advice on wide angle lenses.<br>

I would like to shoot weddings and am in the process of gearing up for such

a gig. I knew I needed something fast, faster than the 18-55mm f/4.5-5.6 kit

lens that came with my D50 backup body, to shoot indoors. I figured I would

end up with a couple of primes, perhaps a 20mm f/2.8 and a 35mm f/2.0. They

had a used Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF for $1,099 which seemed to

do everything I needed; so I bought it. It shoots great, the focus speed is

incredibly fast and I've read several favorable reviews but I'm still not

sleeping

well at night given its price tag.<br>

I've read that it works well on film and full frame digital bodies just as

well

as cropped bodies such as my D200 and that it is sharper and has less

falloff

than many primes in the same focal range but have I bitten off more than I

can

chew? It's 3 times the cost of the Nikon AF Nikkor 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5D ED IF.

I really want to invest in fast lenses and at f/2.8 the 17-35 is noticeably

faster than the 18-35 but I've never purchased a lens that new, dwarfs the

cost

of the camera body. I keep telling myself that as technology changes, bodies

will come and go but the glass in front of them will last much longer. I've

also always told myself that I would never regret buying expensive glass and

that once I had it, it was mine to use forever regardless of the body I used

it on. Sometimes buying cheaper glass results in buying the same thing

twice- something I try to avoid.<br>

I will eventually pair it with a used Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR and use my

50mm

to fill the gap between.<br>

Was this purchase a good investment I have two weeks to make that

determination.<br>

Thanks,<br>

~Aaron<br>

Here are a few reviews I've read...<br>

<a href="http://www.bythom.com/1735lens.htm"

target="_blank">http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1735.htm</a><br>

<a href="http://www.bythom.com/1735lens.htm"

target="_blank">http://www.bythom.com/1735lens.htm</a>

[Peter_in_PA]

Yes.

[hugh_davis]

Aaron,

If you haven't already, read Bjorn Rorslett's review at www.naturfotograf.com (click 'lenses'). Should make you feel a little better...

HWD

[bjørn rørslett]

$1,100 for a legendary Nikkor lens - why on earth should you reconsider that purchase? The AFS 17-35 is simply superb and well worth even more than 3 times the price of any 18-35.

[erik_loza]

All others will now pale for you. Congrats on your new investment.

[mjt]

hi Aaron ...

 

congrats on the glass - this is an awesome lens. i own it and the 28-70 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 VR ... these are all very awesome lenses! if it's not immediately apparent, you will find it difficult to remove these pro lenses from the body.

 

 

cheers, michael

[michaelschrag]

Read some reviews such as this (google is really easy to use):http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/widezooms/widezooms1.html. Make your decision and stop looking for external verification. Take some pictures and enjoy this fine lens.

[ShunCheung]

Since Aaron already has the lens, I don't see why he needs to read any further reviews.

 

I would use the lens and see whether it meets his needs or not. Most likely, it will. However, for example, I have never owned any 50mm Nikkor lens. I don't care 100 people give it excellent reviews and the 50mm/f1.8 only costs $100. As long as I don't like that focal length and the angle of view it creates, I am not buying one.

[michaelschrag]

>>>Since Aaron already has the lens, I don't see why he needs to read any further reviews.

 

I agree with everything that you said, yet regardless, here he is posting a question in this forum. A classic case of buyer's remorse. My point was for him to go look again at one of the many reveiws that confirm that his lens is excellent, take some pictures and live with the decision. His choice to make, not ours.

[michaelschrag]

Aaron,

 

By the way, I recently purchased a Canon 500mm IS f/4 lens. Many of us suffer from second guessing ourselves after large "luxury" purchases. I did. But after looking at the results from this lens it soon went away.

[aaron_gauger]

Thank you much for the plentiful responses! I planned on buying primes that day; actually I was not planning on buying anything that day, only seeking information. I clearly just bought it out of impulse which is NOT the way I like to buy things. I am just trying to justify its value by getting the opinions of more experienced photographers.<br>After reading many of your responses, I will be sleeping very well tonight.<br>Thank you all and yes, I will enjoy this lens. I promise to get lots of use out of it!<br>~Aaron

[petrana_batik]

-- "Was this purchase a good investment"

 

Of course not. You could do much better with government bond, or get a professional to pick even better investments.

[focuslightstudio]

Why would you feel bad? You got it at a bargain price!

[raymond_petty1]

Hey Aaron, as alluded to above, only you know if the lens is right for you.

I bought this same lens on an impulse when the price was too good to pass up as people were "upgrading" to the 17-55/2.8 DX.

There is little risk here because you can always re-sell a lens that carries this type of reputation.

Of course you may come to the same conculsion that I did after I used it a bit...

 

 

WOW!

[unohuu]

Aaron, I have WALE (Wide Angle Lens Envy). I am praying for a nice tax return so I can afford just this one lens. Luke

[mars790]

i spent a lot of money on some Nikon classics last year and went through similar

ruminations

as you. i compared this lens with the 17-55 in and outside the store. i knew which lens i

was

getting 2 minutes after looking at the results on my mac.

 

the 17 -35 is outstanding on my D200. and i suspect it would be even greater on a FF

DSLR

as many film photogs past/present will tell you. i remain optimistic that it will happen and

when it does, i'll be real happy i went with this over the DX 17-55.

 

enjoy your lens!

[ntv666]

Dear Mr.Aaron,

 

This is a best lense and you should be lucky to get at that price. I am alos searching for quite long time at this price. But I am not getting it here in India. If you could suggest some pleace where I can buy at this price around US $ 1,000. Happy shooting with your 17-35

[janvanlaethem]

Aaron,

 

Just enjoy your lens, I've read so many great reviews on it. When you get to the point where you will have taken 1,099 excellent pictures with it, will you still regret your purchase?

[lisa_b4]

Hi Aaron,

 

I bought a used 17-35mm after hearing all the great reviews. I had a 18-35mm that I bought used for $225 and I was happy with it, but I kept hearing all the great feedback for the 17-35 so I found one used in very good condition for $900 and bought it.

 

While there's no doubt the build quality is better on the 17-35 (it's also heavier), when I shot several tests series (against brick walls, buildings, etc.) I was not that impressed with the 17-35's performance. Don't get me wrong, it did pretty good, but only marginally better than the 18-35 IMHO. My copy was soft in the corners at 17mm wide open and up to f/5.6, and stayed that way up to 22mm or so--I didn't expect that from such an expensive lens. Contrast-wise I found the 18-35 pretty much dead even with the 17-35; the 17-35 did focus slightly faster with the AFS.

 

It's worth noting that I am primarily a landscape shooter, so faster AFS focus and the 2.8 aperture aren't that important to me.

 

It's also worth noting that my 18-35mm was damaged when I was up in Banff and the wind blew my tripod over. I was only shooting 2' or so off the ground, but the fall shattered my Nikon 77mm polarizer and cracked the plastic outer body around the filter ring. I super-glued it back together and took a few quick shots to see if it was ok, but I never really bothered to fully test it until I did the comparison against the 17-35. The 18-35 did really well and I wondered how the heavier 17-35 would have fared in the same fall--would the heavier metal body have protected it or would its heavier mass have resulted in a harder fall and more damage?

 

At the end of the day the question for me was: is the 17-35 four to five times better than the 18-35 (based on the cost differential)?? The clear answer for me was: no, it's not.