Do I really need the Nikon 17-35 2.8

[rspies]

I shoot a lot of sports and recently upgraded my D70 to a D300 and kind of overspent my budget on a 70-200 2.8 for

the sports and a Nikkor 18-200 3.5 VR for everyday shooting. My question is will I see a large advantage using a

17-35 2.8 for landscape shots on vacation (not something I will make money on) or will my 18-200 give me good

shots. If there is a significant advantage (considering the $$$ the lens costs) what is it? Is there a cheaper

alternative that would be better than the 18-200 but would not break the bank?

 

Thanks

[michaelging]

Only you can say if you need one.I have one on my D3 and its one of my 2 favorite lenses, and I have a lot of lenses. By the way , my other favorite lens on the D3 is my 80-200 2.8 . I will say that its a very sharp , excellent lens .

[samoksner]

The 17-35 is an FX lens. The image circle is not fully utilized by the D300. So it doesn't make much sense to

pay for that unless you are trying to stay with FX lens'. In anything but low light, the 18-200 will do fine.

 

If you want that range in DX only format i would look at the Nikkor 17-55 f2.8 DX or the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 DX

(very good lens for $500). If you want a wider lens then the 17mm these offer (17 X 1.5 crop factor = 26mm) I

would suggest the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8, it preforms better then the Nikkor 12-24mm f4, it's faster and much

cheaper. The Sigma 10-20mm is also a good solution for around $450-500.

 

Just to put things in perspective, you could get a tokina 11-16 f2.8, a tamron 17-50 f2.8 and a Nikkor 50mm f1.8

for less then the value of the 17-35. Of course, if you want the ability to use these on FX or film, the 17-35

along with the 18-35 are the only options that I would trust.

[Ed_Ingold]

The 18-200/3.5-5.6 has slightly less resolution and chromatic aberation about 50% greater than that of the 17-35/2.8. Distortion at the low end of the scale is over twice as great as the 17-35 - high enough to be clearly visible in buildings and linear structures. The distortion at the long end is also excessive, whereas distortion in the 17-35 decreases as the focal length increases.

 

The 18-200 is designed as a "travel" lens, where it eliminates most lens changes. VR is a nice feature for a slower lens, but probably not necessary for anything shorter than 70mm. It does everything but, like a Swiss Army Knife, does nothing really well. It has a long extension at 200mm, whereas the 17-35 has a constant length. Consequently, the 18-200 tends to sag as it is carried - more an annoyance than serious flaw.

 

Distortion matters very little in landscapes, and you can stop down and use slower shutter speeds (and a tripod) as needed. A wide angle lens like the 17-35 is not particularly suited to landscapes. A medium telephoto (e.g., 50mm on an APS-C sized sensor) gives more "depth" in most cases. Wide angle lenses are mainly used to exaggerate the foreground while rendering mountain ranges as a squiggly line on the horizon.

 

A 17-35 excels for weddings and social events, as well as buildings and interiors. A 17-55 would be even better for DX cameras by eliminating the need for most lens changes during events.

 

The ultimate decision is yours, but should be based on your needs rather than an obsession.

[Rene11664880918]

Do you need it? Only you know that.

 

An easy way to explain is by asking you:

 

Why did you buy the 70-200 if you have the 18-200 already? Do you get better results with the 70-200? Are you happy

with it? If you are, you will be as happy with the 17-35 or 17-55.

 

I would recommend the 17-55 coz of the longer range BUT if you see FX in your future the 17-35 would be the best

choice.

 

Rene'

[tachion]

What are you looking for in the 17-35/2.8 lens? Do you need f/2.8 for landscape? I would be surprised. If you don't need such a fast lens but want better image quality than most copies of the 18-200 provide (I hear some are excellent, some are poor), you could consider the 16-85 VR. This lens is a bit slow, but for landscape that is rarely a problem since you'll use your tripod anyway.

[Matthew Brennan]

My 100% biased super opiniated comment is that the 17-35mm f/2.8 performs well above the 18-200mm VR in it's specific

focal range. I apparently purchased a poor QC copy of the 18-200mm and could not get it to shoot a decent photo even

after a visit to Nikon Aust for a tweak. Others will shout me down and say it's a fine lens - mine was a dog and three months

wasted. On the other hand the 17-35mm is a corker of a lens if you enjoy extra width frames - it's close up focusing is

something special. I understand it is a discontinued lens - better get one whilst they are still retailing new. As for a

cheaper

alternative - I agree with the generality that one gets what one pays for - my one exception to this rule was indeed the 18-

200mm.

I'm a mostly leisure photographer / hobby shooter and don't need any of the nice Nikkors I have but I don't regret buying

them

and they never sit around for too long unused. Only you can answer your question of need. Don't confuse need from want.

[diane_madura]

Hi Ron. I've read that the 17-35 is a near perfect lens. It gets excellent reviews. Is there is a difference between the 18-200 and the 17-35? Yes, that's why it's more expensive. The questions you need to ask yourself are 1) Are you OK with frequently changing lenses while on vacation? 2) Are you willing to carry the extra weight around with you (the 17-35 is not a light-weight lens) 3) Is it worth the extra expense to you to get better quality?

 

Maybe the 16-85 would be a good compromise. Just keep in mind that it's a DX lens.

 

Bring your tripod.

[Peter_in_PA]

The 17-35 (which I've used but don't own) is in a class totally different from and above the 18-200 (which I have and

love). How are you using your photos? I'm surprised few people ask our posters this question, as my experience is that if

you're printing 8 x 10s or smaller, super glass makes no appreciable difference.

 

As far as the 18-200 distortion? If I shoot a frame in order to see it, it's there, but I've yet to actually have to make any

adjustments to any real photos I've shot (except maybe 1 or 2) to correct the distortion, after about 10 or 11 thousand

images.

 

Today, I'd buy the 16-85, but I'm real happy with my 18-200.

[ShunCheung]

For landscape on a DX body, I would get the 12-24mm/f4 AF-S DX or a similar 3rd-party lens. 17mm is only a medium wide lens on DX.

[john_lai3]

Switch to a FX camera first then consider the 17-35mm. At your stage I don't see why you need it...

[gregf1]

How much are you using the 18-200mm between 18 and 35mm? It's capture in the EXIF so you can go through your pictures. That's the first question you should answer before investing in the lens. If you shoot alot then decide, if not forgo it. A new lens wouldn't change your shooting style, it will only still in your camera bag.

[gary_loo]

For my D3, I purchased a used 20-35 f/2.8D and have travelled all over Europe with it. I got mine used for about $550 and as long as you don't shoot straight into the sun, it is an excellent lens. You just can't beat a 2.8 lens for low light photography and even with a D3, I try to shoot with the lowest ISO possible.