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

[thirtyfivemill]

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

[bobfriedman]

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.

[thirtyfivemill]

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?

[bobfriedman]

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

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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

[thirtyfivemill]

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

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?

[Bjørn Rørslett]

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.

[gryphon1911]

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.

[thirtyfivemill]

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?

[thirtyfivemill]

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.

[bobfriedman]

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.

[thirtyfivemill]

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.

[Thomas G]

I liked the 17-35 on he D700 and continue to do so the Df. It behaves well and predictable and is quite sturdy.

[Frank Fremerey]

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

[John Geerts]

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