NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: thirtyfivemill on January 05, 2018, 20:01:23
-
I'm in need of a good wide angle zoom which will be paired with my D700. Now I'm fairly sure the Nikon AF-S 17-35mm will pair well with the 12mp D700 but there have been a fair few new comers to the market since I last researched this particular range. For many years (on the recommendation of Bjorn who I met up with in Oslo for a shoot going back just over 20 years ago when I was training as a pilot in Sweden ((Hi Bjorn!!)) I shot with the 20-35 on a D1X and loved that lens and would consider that one again but I'd like something tad wider.
My conundrum has resulted from reading the reviews about the 18-35 AF-S G, the 16-35 VR and the slightly worrying problems some have encountered with failing motors on their 17-35s.
This lens will be used for 60% landscape photography and 40% general. The 2.8 is nice but probably not critical, especially if we take the VR of the 16-35 into the equation. At the moment I flit from one leaning to another, seemingly always coming back to the 17-35mm but that's probably because it's a lens I know.
So, what's the advice folks? Which of those 3 should I picking for my D700 or have I missed a lens I should be considering? There's a thought process that maybe I should break the bank and find a 14-24mm but I'm really trying to keep this purchase to around the £300-500 mark.
Duncan
-
i have had two of these... the latest was purchased to do IR photography since there are very few wide angle lenses with filter threads that i know work in the IR.. aside from that the lens has always been a reasonably good performer.. there are some complaints about distortion at the wider angles going away at 20mm but as long as you hold it level should be reasonable.. i have the 14-24/2.8G and the Zeiss 15 both require leveling or you run the risk of distortion..
my latest was purchased on ebay for $600 and has an AF squeak which doesn't bother me.. most of the 17-35/2.8D's had this affliction. so for that price (and its still in the inventory) i would say a good catch.
-
i have had two of these... the latest was purchased to do IR photography since there are very few wide angle lenses with filter threads that i know work in the IR.. aside from that the lens has always been a reasonably good performer.. there are some complaints about distortion at the wider angles going away at 20mm but as long as you hold it level should be reasonable.. i have the 14-24/2.8G and the Zeiss 15 both require leveling or you run the risk of distortion..
my latest was purchased on ebay for $600 and has an AF squeak which doesn't bother me.. most of the 17-35/2.8D's had this affliction. so for that price (and its still in the inventory) i would say a good catch.
Good grief, that's a blast from the past. I do believe I used to chat to you on photo.net a couple of decades ago, too, Bob!
Thanks for that. I think if this lens was being paired with a D800/810 I might be thinking slightly differently but for the D700 the 17-35 should be a very good lens. But have the optics improved to a point that the cheaper 18-35 or newer 16-35 are actually better performers or does the 17-35 still easily hold it's own in such company, I wonder?
-
I think if this lens was being paired with a D800/810 I might be thinking slightly differently but for the D700 the 17-35 should be a very good lens. But have the optics improved to a point that the cheaper 18-35 or newer 16-35 are actually better performers or does the 17-35 still easily hold it's own in such company, I wonder?
i think the 17-35/2.8D would be perfectly fine on the D800/D810.. in fact the intent was to use with my IR conversions which are now all D800's and my recent monochrome sensor conversion is a D800... when the weather gets better and the foliage comes back to the Northeast i will try and compare all of them with the 17-35/2.8D.
back in the day.. all my IR conversions were D200/D300s cams.
i haven't tried the new 16-35/4G
-
The newer 16-35/4 Nikkor is pretty good in IR and the VR actually appears to be of some value.
Good to see you here on NG, Duncan :D
-
The newer 16-35/4 Nikkor is pretty good in IR and the VR actually appears to be of some value.
Good to see you here on NG, Duncan :D
Good evening, Bjorn!! Yes, I did promise when I spoke to you on the phone about a year ago. Things take me a little longer these days!! :)
I have to say the 16-35 does appeal to me but there seems to be some sample variation?
-
Probably. Lots of the modern designs have production tolerances that sometimes bring the final product out of spec. If you purchase from a decent dealer should be no problem getting a replacement, though.
-
If you don't mind non-Nikon brand lenses, you might also want to consider the Tokina 16-28/2.8 and the Tamron 15-30/2.8 VC.
KEH has the Tokina right now for a bit over $500USD.
-
Probably. Lots of the modern designs have production tolerances that sometimes bring the final product out of spec. If you purchase from a decent dealer should be no problem getting a replacement, though.
Yes, good point. I'll take another look at that one. Now I thought you'd be firmly on the side of the 17-35mm. As I recall that was your staple wide zoom for many a year?
-
If you don't mind non-Nikon brand lenses, you might also want to consider the Tokina 16-28/2.8 and the Tamron 15-30/2.8 VC.
KEH has the Tokina right now for a bit over $500USD.
Thanks Andrew. I admit to having always stuck firmly to the Nikons for standard primes and zooms. I've gone off piste fairly often with my macro lenses, which is 90% of what I shoot but with landscape and urban/street I've stuck to Nikon lenses exclusively and may be getting a bit long in the tooth to change now. :)
-
i'd buy the 17-35/2.8D before i'd buy the non-nikon... especially since it can be had so inexpensively on the used market.
-
i'd buy the 17-35/2.8D before i'd buy the non-nikon... especially since it can be had so inexpensively on the used market.
Yep, that would be inclination, too, Bob.
-
I liked the 17-35 on he D700 and continue to do so the Df. It behaves well and predictable and is quite sturdy.
-
I liked the 17-35 on he D700 and continue to do so the Df. It behaves well and predictable and is quite sturdy.
+1
-
I liked the 17-35 on he D700 and continue to do so the Df. It behaves well and predictable and is quite sturdy.
I like the 17-35 also on the D600 and D800E
-
Well, this was one of the most interesting couple of days of lens research I've done for a while. The main problem with comparing these lenses is the utterly conflicting information that's been published on the net. Nothing unusual there per se but in this case the views shared were literally 50/50, especially when comparing the 17-35 to the 16-35.
I did finally come to a decision and a lens has today been purchased for delivery Monday. Many thanks to all who replied here.
The lens I've ordered is... the 17-35. In the end I had to dissect exactly what I'd use the lens for and how. Much of it's work will be landscape and architecture and for those two genres the lenses seemed fairly equal. IQ was seemingly similar, the 16-35 had the slight advantage of the extra 1mm width and VR, the 17-35 coming out on top with the extra stop. I'll discount build quality at the moment and even size as neither particularly effect the final image. What swung it for me was the extra stop. I'm fairly religious about using a tripod so VR was handy but not a deal breaker for what this lens would be used for. The ability to introduce a shallower DOF into images of people WAS a deal-breaker, though and that's what finally made me choose an older lens over newer technology.
A very enjoyable couple of days reading, however, and now I'm looking forward to enjoying the results!! Thanks again all!
-
Liked it so much better on d800, and df, step-up from d700, d3 cameras, imho.
-
Liked it so much better on d800, and df, step-up from d700, d3 cameras, imho.
Don't even go there, Fons. The D700 does everything I need! ;D
-
i'd buy the 17-35/2.8D before i'd buy the non-nikon... especially since it can be had so inexpensively on the used market.
I call my 17-35mm f/2.8D "Mr. Squeaky." It's on it's second motor now, and for the last few years this motor has been squeaking as well. More recently, though, it's started making a clicking noise before it starts to focus, so the death of this second motor is at hand. Nor is this an uncommon repair for this model. A new replacement motor is around $400 installed. I keep hoping a replacement comes out before it dies, but so far no luck.
Can it still cut it? Well, if you are looking for a test chart hero, it's not up to, say the latest Canon 16-35mm. But it's put a lot of shots "in the can" for me on a D800, and I prefer its range to lenses like the 14-24mm f/2.8 or even the Tamron 15-30mm.
-
Good choice, I love my AF-S 17-35/2.8 and use it a lot.
However, even more I am stunned by the quality of the AF-S 20/1.8 and use it a lot more.
It is probably cheaper, it is lighter, probably better IQ and the additional speed doesn't hurt.
Yes, it is not a zoom, but falls nicely into the zoom range for using your feet :)
-
I call my 17-35mm f/2.8D "Mr. Squeaky." It's on it's second motor now, and for the last few years this motor has been squeaking as well. More recently, though, it's started making a clicking noise before it starts to focus, so the death of this second motor is at hand.
Mr. Benveniste, When your 17-35's first motor failed,were you still able to manually focus the lens, or did the manual focus ring jam and become unuseable?
-
Are there any of the Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 lenses that do NOT squeak / have never squeaked?
I am simply curious.
FWIW, mine sqeaks occasionally, but the squeaking quickly goes away upon being used - as others have noted.
-
Mr. Benveniste, When your 17-35's first motor failed,were you still able to manually focus the lens, or did the manual focus ring jam and become unuseable?
I read somewhere else that someone's motor packed in but he still used it as a manual lens.
-
Are there any of the Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 lenses that do NOT squeak / have never squeaked?
I am simply curious.
FWIW, mine sqeaks occasionally, but the squeaking quickly goes away upon being used - as others have noted.
Perhaps a bit unused and noisy when I got it out of the box, but after that the focus never made a sound. Works without squeaking since 2008.
-
Bought mine new in 2002, sqeaked from day 1, after 15 years still working without a flaw, after 5-8 turns from Infinity-to-NFD and back it's silent.
-
Mr. Benveniste, When your 17-35's first motor failed,were you still able to manually focus the lens, or did the manual focus ring jam and become unuseable?
I was able to focus it manually.
-
Well, received the lens today and am happy to report it's very much like new and there are zero squeaks! This may have to do with it being a later serial number one which was produced after 2006. Time to go shoot!
-
Are there any of the Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 lenses that do NOT squeak / have never squeaked?
I am simply curious.
FWIW, mine sqeaks occasionally, but the squeaking quickly goes away upon being used - as others have noted.
Mine doesn't. Still the motor I reveived it with. 7 or 8 years of use plus used buy.
-
I was able to focus it manually.
Thanks for the reply. I'll be happy to focus mine manually if the motor croaks.
My copy was bought new in 2006. After about 7 or 8 years of light, non-professional use, one day the focus ring was suddenly jammed, and the AF had stopped working. Nikon repair replaced the motor and several other things, but it could not be ascertained from the service notes if the motor or some other part/mechanism had been the cause of the failure.
-
Liked it so much better on d800, and df, step-up from d700, d3 cameras, imho.
Yes I have the same experience, the 17-35 is (was) great on the DX but not so great with the first FF camera's. Major improvements with the D600/D800E and Df.
-
Hi Duncan.
I consider the 17-35 f/2.8 to be a top-notch lens, so much so that I haven't purchased a 16-35 f/4 even though it has VR. I use mine primarily on my D700 and D3s. I use it more than my 14-24 f/2.8 because I have filter systems for it.
JIM
-
About one year ago, I had been through the same decission making study to choose one of these lenses. Finally, I came to the conclusion of buying 17-35 f2.8D AF-ED lens and I purchased the last lens available in Australian market. It works perfect with D800 for visible and fully converted D3200 for IR.
-
I've had the 17-35mm and currently have the 18-35mm G lens. The older lens, while sharp, was notable for fringing on the D300 I used it with. The 18-35mm is a great lens on my D610 and D5200. It's much lighter for longer backpacking trips. But it is also not as robust for hard use.