D300 with 17-35mm F2.8

[rayyeager]

<p>I currently have a D300, but plan to add a D700 down the line. Anyone have experience with the 17-35mm F2.8 on the D300. I want to upgrade my walk-around. Thinking of selling my Nikon 12-24mm and my Nikon 16-85mm to purchase this lens for the future. All my other lenses are FX compatible (24-70, 70-200, 300 F4). The other alternative is to purchase the 17-55mm F2.8 and sell it when I get the D700. I shoot mainly landscape and nature. I'll keep the D300 for my bird shots. I realize that 17mm will be a little long for my wide 'til I get the D700. Thanks ... Ray. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Other than the fact that 17mm is not all that wide on DX (D300), the 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S works fine on the D300.</p>

[geoff_captain]

<p>Definitely consider the 14-24mm f2.8. I use it all the time on my D300 as a walk-around 21-36 equivalent. Its very sharp, focuses fast and goes crazy-wide on fx (I've used it on my 35mm). Some people detract from it due to the lack of filter threads, but I haven't had any issues so far by shooting Raw.<br>

Nice and wide on the D300:<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3134/3130162662_e7ba5acaf0_o.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="531" /></p>

[robertbody]

<p>I read that 17-55mm had flare issues when shooting into the sun, and that 17-35mm was "good", so I got it for my D200, then D300, and I find it has glare issues with light sources even with streetlamps at night, not just the sun. But otherwise it's great, makes for a heavy combo to walk around with, but it is my primary lens, because of the focal lengths, 25mm-52mm, in addition to my 50mm f/1.8 and 105mm f/2.8 VR.<br>

<img src="http://www.robertbody.com/things08/images/2008-12-31-tempe-fireworks-70004.jpg" alt="" width="750" height="500" /><br>

In this picture the flare is not too bad, i saw worse one with longer exposure, but it's still not bad. It's not just proximity to the edges, i saw worse ones in the middle too..... and that's all without any filter on the lens.<br>

I don't think there is a lens that handles flare better though, definately not a zoom, and the f/2.8 can be helpful at times, definately it's a difference between f/2.8 and f/4.5 on the long end of 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5<br>

<img src="http://www.robertbody.com/cities08/images/2008-11-28-tempe-fireworks-56691.jpg" alt="" width="750" height="500" /><br>

Not in this particular shot, but in a framing just like this, with fireworks coming from the same source, I have seen bad, really bad flare [without filter on] from the source of light being just the light of the fireworks, and between 1/4s and 1second exposure, with illumination like here or lighter.<br>

It doesn't happen all the time though, and since there are no competitors for this lens, it's something one can live with, but still it would be nice to know how to prevent it.</p>

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

<p>I have a friend who has the 17-35mm f/2.8 on his D300 - - he's happy with the result & from what I've seen it looks good.<br>

Lil :)</p>

[reichard]

<p>eek that's one pricey lens -- I want one!!!!</p>

[ronald_moravec1]

<p>A 12/24 Nikkor will work on FX at 18mm to 24mm with no vignetting. The very corners lose some definition, but nobody else has ever reported that.</p>

<p> </p>

[tholte]

<p>"I read that 17-55mm had flare issues when shooting into the sun". Every lens ever made has flare issues when shooting into the sun. Your eyeballs have issues when looking at the sun. </p>