Nikkor 17-35mm f2.8D

[pemongillo]

<p>I just left large format and have a D700 with several lenses. The most signifigant are the 35mm 1:2D prime and the 14-24mm Zoom. I am not sure I want to keep either and am considering replacing them both with the above mentioned lens which I have borrowed from my nieghbor for a test ride. I wish I could say that I can see a clear difference at 100 percent magnification. I think I would have to say that my prime and 14-24 mm zoom have a slight edge in sharpness over the 17-35, but when I make a print I doubt anyone will notice. I am leaning towards selling both my lenses and replacing them with a new 17-35 just for the convenience of one lens that shoots in the range I shoot 95 percent of the time and is much lighter than the combination of the other two. However, I noticed that the 17-35 makes kind of a high pitched whining noise when the autofocus has to travel a large distance. It also seems to have a bit more trouble finding the focus on some objects. Is this common with the 17-35mm lens or is my nieghbors starting to show its age. I am sure she got it when they first came out.<br>

Other thoughts would be appreciated.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Your neighbor's 17-35mm is showing its age; the AF squeel is common among older samples, including mine: <a href="../nikon-camera-forum/00OvZ6">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00OvZ6</a></p>

<p>In the zoom range they overlap, the 14-24mm is slightly superior. Most people find 17-35mm a more convenient zoom range for the FX format. I have both lenses and use the 17-35 a lot more often.</p>

[edwardchen]

<p>my 17-35 was bought in 2004 and still doing okay until now. I stay with 17-35 (instead of 14-24) because i use filters a lot of time. 14-24 doesn't have filter thread. Also as shun said above..it is more convenient range.</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>Other thoughts would be appreciated.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Okay, you asked for it. Here are some "other thoughts."</p>

<p>1) I'm not sure why you "left large format." Back problems? Why not continue to shoot big film on occasion (i.e. in REALLY good light)?</p>

<p>2) Since you already own the 14-24, I think you should hang onto it. By all accounts it's one of the finest lenses that Nikon has ever engineered. You could consider a 24-70 f/2.8 G to cover the next range of focal lengths.</p>

<p>3) Nostradamus tells us that someday (maybe soon, or maybe far in the future) the 17-35 f/2.8 will be upgraded or replaced. Since Nikon likes to introduce products around this time of year, perhaps one should be patient for a bit longer. You never know! Maybe the original version will come down in price if a new version is released. You wouldn't want to make Nostradamus angry, would you? :)</p>

<p>4) While you're pondering your next move, go out and shoot as many images as you can with the 14-24. Because when it's gone you're gonna miss it!</p>

[mark_jordan3]

<p>Not sure the squeal has anything to do with aging, both my 17-35mm and 300mm AFS did it brand new out of the box...as it has for many others. Regularly used mine do not squeal, if they sit unused for some time (a month or so) they'll squeal a bit, but it'll disappear. Whenever it happens I point the lens to the sky so it'll "hunt" a few cycles and then it's gone. It's really the strangest thing, but I've called Nikon multiple times on it and they insist there's nothing at risk to the lens.</p>

[pemongillo]

<p>Thanks Dan,<br>

I know I will miss it when its gone and would love to keep it, but I can't afford to have it and not use it that much. I am looking at selling both the 14-24 and 35mm f2 D prime and replace them with the 17-35mm. 95 percent of the range I shoot in is between 17 and 35. Environmental portaits mostly at the 35mm end. This could be both my landscape lens and portrait lens.<br>

I had to sell all my film cameras to get the D700 and lenses. I left 4x5 because I was tired of missing shots and because readlyload t-max went away. It was never a weight issue. I drug my Phillips 4x5 all over the world during the ten years I had it. Over the years, most of my 4x5 shots moved from landscape to environmental portraiture. I have taken some amazing portraits with it, but it was always on the edge for f stop and shutter speed. I leave the country allot and got tired of the film x-ray arguments every time I changed planes.<br>

I haven't completely adapted to digital yet and miss my 4x5. I still print in the darkroom even though I shoot digital. I make full sized negatives on my Epson 2880 and make contact prints in the darkroom.<br>

Paul</p>

[gen]

<p>I would also recommend keeping the 14-24 as it is known to be sharper at the edges than the 17-35, especially on the D3x. Rumors say that a new 16-35 AF-S lens for FX is coming soon, slower but perhaps with VR. I am waiting to see what Nikon will ship later this fall before purchasing a wide zoom myself. I think the 14-24 can be an excellent environmental portraiture lens, especially if you use it really close to your subject as it can focus really close. The 14-24 owners pool at Flickr is instructive.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I think that the 17-35 is far far more useful a range than 14-24 for all but ultra-wide junkies. I notice on my DX camera and my Tokina 11-16, that only being able to zoom "in" to 16mm, a 24mm equivalent field of view, is, in real world shooting, often frustrating, as it was this morning for instance. It's why I'm continuing to be tempted to get the 10-20 f3.5 from Sigma (if reviews pan out, haven't seen any yet) to replace it. At least then I'll get an equivalent f.o.v. of 15 - 30.</p>

<p>Few people that are tempted by that 14-24 are apt to put it to good use.</p>

<p>Gen, that new lens is intriguing! I wonder if there's anything to that. We've heard some real and some not-so-real rumors about impending Nikon gear (MX format anyone?).</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>May I suggest that people don't bring all sorts of rumors into this forum? There are now plenty of web sites that exist solely for the purpose of spreading rumors, and worse yet, they copy one another's information so that if you are not careful, you may even think there is "confirmation" of the same information, although in fact is is cooked up from the same source.</p>

<p>The so called "MX" format was one and that Nikon "road map" in mid July was another. At that time I already knew that the 70-200 Version 2 would be announced in late July, while the "road map" had it for an October announcement. So I immediately knew that whole thing was merely a hoax.</p>

<p>I don't think it is a good idea to base your purchase decisions on rumors.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>There's a difference between rumors and projections. Ever since the 14-24 arrived, I have "projected" that a 17-35 replacement is coming, one that matches the former's optical quality. I also "project" an eventual resurgence in employment rates and housing prices. I don't know WHEN, but at this point I'm not going to buy a 17-35, sell a house, or look for a new job. ;)</p>

<p>FWIW, none of this is based on rumor but rather on my own observations and experience.</p>