Nikon 17-35 F/2.8D ED IF vs. Nikon Primes

[brad_herman1]

<p>All;<br>

I have a Nikon 17-35 F/2.8 D ED IF lens and I'm pleased with the results. I am thinking about getting a Nikon 28mm F/2.8 Ais MF lens primarily for the compact size. I will use it on my D700 as well as on my FM3a.<br>

How does the 28mm F/2.8 Ais compare with the zoom or vise-versa? Will it be better, worse or about the same? Obviously, depending on the aperture and other variables, there may be slight differences, but generally-speaking, will it be worth the expense? If not, I can continue carrying the 17-35 around.<br>

Thanks, Brad</p>

[keith_b1]

<p>I've got both, and although I've never made a direct a/b test, I'd say that at 28mm, stopped down past about f/5.6, they're going to be close...very close. Wide open and one stop down, the prime will have less visible 'faults'. Overall, images shot with the prime will have a slightly cleaner, regular, and less 'lensy' look. The 17-35 design is showing it's age at this point in time.</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>the only factor i'd consider the prime against the excellent 17-35mm is weight. if there is something like a "prime" zoom, that's what you have. what i also do is carry a 50mm f/1.8 in my pocket when i have a wide zoom mounted.</p>

[niccoury]

<p>the 28 f/2 AIS is a greatly sharp lens.</p>

[m_allegretta]

<p>I use the 28/2.8 with the 0.2 m close focus distance, and it is the best 28mm Ai-s straight prime.<br>

I don't know how the 17-35 will perform against the 28 because I don't own that particular zoom.<br>

I have other AF zooms, and they are sharp. But, the zooms are heavy, don't have DOF markings, are prone to flare, and distort the image more than the prime lens would.<br>

For precision photographic work I always choose prime lenses. In your case, the 28mm will give you top results, will be more portable and less conspicuous.</p>

[cd_k]

<p>I have both lenses and use them on D700 and F3/F6. I really like 17-35/2.8 zoom - it does everything well. In terms of general performance, the 28/2.8 Ais may be slightly better, particularly in close-up, and on film. With D700, if you are using Nikon NX2, the lens correction software will made the zoom as good as the 28mm Ais. For me personally, I use the zoom a lot more often because of the zoom range and auto focus. But the 28mm/2.8 Ais is a very special lens and I will not sell mine as long as I use Nikon system.<br>

<br /> Hope this helps!</p>

[walterh]

<p>Brad I must admit I never made a serious comparison between the two lenses but I am much impressed with the IQ of the 17-35mm f2.8 zoom. I never missed anything in IQ in the zoom as compared to an excellent prime so I never had reasons to compare it with a prime. Interestingly this is also true for resistance to flare and ghosting. I always take extreme care to shade the lens whenever possible and always use the hood but this lens really is impressive also in this respect. With a D3 you can shoot in bright light with excellent contrast and pull out shadows say from a portrait of a person wearing a hat in an really impressive way. The only weak point of the zoom is the very wide end but here I "complain" at a high level going from excellent down to almost excellent in the corners.</p>

<p>So I personally use the two lenses just as you intend to do. The prime is only used if I need a small lens and I can get by without the range of the zoom.</p>

[brad_herman1]

<p>The other option that I was considering was the Zeiss 28mm F2 Distagon. I already own a Zeiss ZF 35mm F2 Biogon and a 50mm F2 Makro Planar. These lenses are stellar performers and have received great reviews.<br>

Sean Reid gave the Zeiss ZF 28mm a pretty good review, most others only gave it a 'fair' or 'decent' rating due to its extreme curvature of field and out-of-focus frame borders on the FX bodies.<br>

This is why I was contemplating the Nikon 28mm F/2.8 Ais. It's small, light, fairly inexpensive and gets great reviews.<br>

Brad</p>

[Two23]

<p>The 17-35mm f2.8 is a newer design and will have newer coatings. </p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[john_morris4]

<p>Did you not like the Nikon 28mm f/2? Maybe it's not small enough, compared to the f/2.8 version.<br>

The more I use the 35mm f/2 ZF, the more impressed I am, but I'm hopeful that the Nikkor will be good for 28mm -- I can't justify another ZF right now.</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>I actually use a 28/3.5 because it's small, really cheap, high mechanical quality and produces very good images actually. But I'm considering fo getting a Zeiss 28/2 for large aperture, low light work. So my view is that different lenses for different applications; if you want solid quality at smaller apertures, one of the slower nikkors is to be preferred, if you want the convenience of a zoom, continue with the zoom and if you want pocketable size, a small prime is a no brainer.</p>

[matt_smith24]

<p>I have both. The 28 f/2.8 AI-S is an absolute beauty and it has the edge, close-up - it certainly has less distortion. At infinity, i would have to say the zoom has a slight advantage. One thing I've noticed with the AI and AI-S lenses in general is that they have lower contrast that the more modern lenses. This is easily fixed PP or in camera if you shoot jpegs. I'm continually amazed at the sharpness of the 28 f/2.8 AI-S at close distances and I own some sharp lenses. There is also the possibility of sample variation and I've heard of one or two bad copies of the manual lens. However, get a good one and you'll never want to part with it.</p>

[matt_smith24]

<p>I have both. The 28 f/2.8 AI-S is an absolute beauty and it has the edge, close-up - it certainly has less distortion. At infinity, i would have to say the zoom has a slight advantage. One thing I've noticed with the AI and AI-S lenses in general is that they have lower contrast that the more modern lenses. This is easily fixed PP or in camera if you shoot jpegs. I'm continually amazed at the sharpness of the 28 f/2.8 AI-S at close distances and I own some sharp lenses. There is also the possibility of sample variation and I've heard of one or two bad copies of the manual lens. However, get a good one and you'll never want to part with it.</p>

[frankeleveld]

<p>I have the 28/2.8 AI-S with 0.2m near-focus limit. It's a very sharp lens, which also renders out of focus areas quite nicely. It's well built, yet small and light weight. One aspect I love about the 28/2.8 AI-S is its resistance against flare, shooting straight into the sun or with strong lights in your image frame isn't a problem, especially when considered my copy has a few blemishes on its front element. Here's an example:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/frankeleveld/3994160201/">http://www.flickr.com/photos/frankeleveld/3994160201/</a></p>

[john_morris4]

<p>I just bought a 28 f/2.0 Ai-S (thanks, Brad) and it's fantastic!</p>

<p>On a D700, it's perfectly usable at f/2, and it's excellent at f/2.8 -- perfectly sharp enough for a D700 across the whole frame, no corner light falloff, and just a hint of barrel distortion. At f/4 and f/5.6 it absolutely sparkles. It's a great size on the D700; it's short and light and easy to handle.</p>

<p>Looking at the lens, I can't see any (engineering) reason that Nikon could not have sold the 28 f/2.0, with the same optics, as an autofocus lens, with screwdriver focus. It might have been slightly larger, but then most of the early AF Nikkors were at least a little wider. I suppose they didn't want to offer both that lens and a premium f/1.4, but now we're stuck with the f/1.4 lens being enormously expensive, and the f/2.0 being obtainable but solidly non-AF. For me, though, I'm happy to see that this lens does well enough that it will keep me from wanting the Zeiss for a while.</p>

<div></div>

[john_morris4]

<p>I know it's a little silly, but here's a 100% crop. Ilkka has written before that the D3 and D700 pixel size is well chosen to make a lot of the older Nikkors look good.</p>

<div></div>