Does The Nikon AF-S 17-35mm Still Cut It?

[thirtyfivemill]

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!

[Fons Baerken]

Liked it so much better on d800, and df, step-up from d700, d3 cameras, imho.

[thirtyfivemill]

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! 

[benveniste]

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.

[Jakov Minić]

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

[pluton]

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? 

[Hugh_3170]

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.

[thirtyfivemill]

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.

[John Geerts]

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.

[Stephan]

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.

[benveniste]

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.

[thirtyfivemill]

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!

[Thomas G]

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.

[pluton]

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.

[John Geerts]

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.