ben_hutcherson Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 Unfortunately, there's a first for everything. My D800 with this lens attached took a tumble out of the back seat of my car onto the driveway(fortunately, the D800 is fine). In any case, aside from a filter ring dent, the zoom ring is jammed at 17mm and the focus is quite stiff. The focus seems to be an internal problem, and not just with the ring, as it will focus but is slow, makes a lot of noise, and "catches" some. Under other circumstances, I'd just send it on to Nikon for repair and not admit on here to my stupidity. I tried to go on-line and get a quote, though, and it's not listed in the drop-down menu. I know that this isn't an overly popular lens these days, but it's still cataloged so I'd think Nikon would be able to repair. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to go about taking care of this? I'm hoping it's not a lost cause... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 (edited) Ben, everybody knows that I have recently dropped my 200-500mm lens at home, and that lens is down at Nikon for repair. Therefore, I am an old hand in this process by now. :( I have good news and bad news for you. The good news is that the 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S is still listed on Nikon's repair web site. The lens order on their drop-down list is pretty weird. The 17-35mm is near the bottom of the list, just above the AI-S 20mm lens. The bad news is that the general repair estimate for impact damage for the 17-35mm is $600. Concerning alternatives, you can check with Authorized Photo Service in Chicago. I have used them exactly once. Their service is excellent, but don't expect them to be cheap: Professional Nikon Service & Repair - Authorized Photo Service, Inc. Edited August 31, 2018 by ShunCheung Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_hutcherson Posted August 31, 2018 Author Share Posted August 31, 2018 Thanks Shun. I don't know how I missed it, but guess I didn't look that far down. With that said, $600 buys another at KEH...I think I know what route I'll go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 Nikon's 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S is a pretty old lens. I recall they introduced it in 1999 along with the D1 DSLR, and 17mm would let you "regain" something similar to 24mm on FX on Nikon's first DSLR. For a while supply was so limited that you had to be a D1 owner to buy the 17-35mm. Later on Nikon removed that restriction and I bought my in 2001 or so. It is a pretty old lens by now and IMO the 17mm end is not that good on modern, 24MP, 36MP, and 45MP FX bodies. I agree it is probably not worth to spend $600 to repair it. Nikon seems to favor the 14-24mm and 14-30mm zoom ranges instead nowadays and they have two versions of those on their Z-mount road map. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_hutcherson Posted August 31, 2018 Author Share Posted August 31, 2018 I know it's not the best, and in all honesty I have way too many UW zooms. Still, it's a lens that fills a weird niche for me. I have the cheap and bad 18-35, but have been horribly disappointed with it. I also have the 14-24, which is superb and that I love, but that I can't(practically) use filters on. In addition, the 17-35 has an aperture ring, which, combined with the fact that it has a filter ring, means that it works great with all my film cameras. Of course, one of the BIG downsides I've noticed with this lens is that it's not that much lighter than the 14-24. So, I guess I have to decide if I want to replace this at all. On one hand, the 18-35 is okay for film. The 16-35 might be a viable substitute-of course I can't use it on my F2, etc but it will work fine on my F5, F100, and somewhat on my F4. If I'm not mistaken, it's a fair bit lighter than the 17-35. It seems to be a generally well regarded lens, too, and I always like VR even though it's not AS important to me on ultra-wides as on normal to teles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 Personally, I by far prefer the newer 18-35mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S (i.e. the AF-S version, not the AF-D from the beginning of the century). It is not f2.8, but it is much better near 18mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeBu Lamar Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 You mount the very nice but a DX lens on the D800 and it doesn't like it so it jumped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_hutcherson Posted August 31, 2018 Author Share Posted August 31, 2018 You mount the very nice but a DX lens on the D800 and it doesn't like it so it jumped. Not sure I follow-the 18-35 f/2.8 AF-S is an FX lens. As Shun mentioned, it came out around the "turn of the Century" with the main target being pros who wanted a fast normal zoom for the DX format DSLRs. It was/is a film/FX lens, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_olander1664878205 Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 The 17-55mm f/2.8 is a DX lens, not the 17-35mm f/2.8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 The 17-55mm f/2.8 is a DX lens, not the 17-35mm f/2.8. Oh, I see what BeBu was talking about. Yes, the 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S is an FX lens, introduced in 1999 along with the D1 (DX format), partly for the D1 to have a true wide-angle zoom, but the 17-35 itself can cover FX. In 1999, there was no such concept as DX lenses. Back then all Nikon F-mount lenses (except for a few for Pronea APS film bodies) were for 35mm film. The first DX lens didn't appear until 2003, and it was the 12-24mm/f4 DX, followed by the 17-55mm/f2.8 DX. I own all three lenses mentioned in this particular post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mary Doo Posted August 31, 2018 Share Posted August 31, 2018 My D800 with this lens attached took a tumble out of the back seat of my car onto the driveway(fortunately, the D800 is fine). Ouch! My condolences Ben. I dropped my previous 24-70mm lens a few years ago. It was fixed by Nikon in NY or the store in Chicago - can't remember. It was a few hundred dollars but don't think it was as much as $600. It's not an inexpensive lens but I believe you can get a good used one below that price. Maybe you'd think about a 17-55 (or 24-70 - love this lens) instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeBu Lamar Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 Not sure I follow-the 18-35 f/2.8 AF-S is an FX lens. As Shun mentioned, it came out around the "turn of the Century" with the main target being pros who wanted a fast normal zoom for the DX format DSLRs. It was/is a film/FX lens, though. You're right! My bad. I was thinking about the 17-55 f/2.8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now