Opticallimits

Full Version: Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.

kentcp

Dear all,

Can't find review on this old Nikon lens for FX camera. Some of forumer said it better than 14-24mm f/2.8, is it true?



Under DX, I notice this lens resolution is higher than 14-24mm on center but the border resolution is better on 14-24mm. In this case, if I am shooting sunrise/sunset landscape, I should consider better border resolution which is 14-24mm, right ?



Also, hope to see the 35mm f/1.4G review (my friend is keen to see the review before buy it)



Regards,

Kenny

wojtt

Hi Kenny,



I can speak only from memory, but I wouldn't second that.. I used the 17-35 for some time on DX, then sold it since I was rather unhappy with the performance. I would say definitely below the 14-24 2.8 in terms of resolution and contrast, I think the N 16-35 might prove already better in optical performance - if you don't need the f 2.8 and need a filter thread? Then I might have had a 17-35 lemon <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Smile' />



On the other hand I was very happy with my 14-24 2,8 sample till the day it took a hit <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Smile' /> - actually, together with my D700, while the camera suvived with no problem at all, the front element and the integrated petal hood of the 14-24 got damaged.. Sh.. happens <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />
Hi Kenny,



welcome on board.



[quote name='Kenny' timestamp='1292590692' post='5069']

Under DX, I notice this lens resolution is higher than 14-24mm on center but the border resolution is better on 14-24mm. In this case, if I am shooting sunrise/sunset landscape, I should consider better border resolution which is 14-24mm, right ?[/quote]



The FX review isn't finished, yet, but you can assume the same behaviour on FX, too. Very high center resolution, but less sharpness in borders and corners than 14-24. If I remember the numbers correctly, also a little less than the 16-35 VR.



So, for landscapes, the 14-24 is probably the best of these three ... unless you plan to use filters regularly. Also note that the 14-24 tends to flare a lot, however not necessarily when the sun is actually in the frame.



Another option would be one of the Zeiss wide angle lenses: ZF 18/3.5 or ZF 21/2.8.



[quote name='Kenny' timestamp='1292590692' post='5069']

Also, hope to see the 35mm f/1.4G review (my friend is keen to see the review before buy it)[/quote]



This lens will be reviewed within the next months, but I cannot tell you when, yet. The 85/1.4 will probably come first.



-- Markus
The Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 is quite a good lens, very typical for its kind (full frame UWA). It is pretty similar in qualities to its peers: Nikon AF-S 16-35mm f4 VR, Canon EF 17-40mm f4 L USM, Canon EF 16-35mm f2.8 L USM II and Sony/Zeiss T* 16-35mm f2.8 SSM.



It is a well liked lens in general, and has one advantage over the 16-35mm f4 VR: It has a lot less pronounced "barrel" distortion.



How the announced Tokina FF UWA zoom will perform is not known yet, but it might be a good one.



If I had a Nikon FF camera, and I would come across a relatively affordable 17-35mm f2.8 (and I would be in the market for a good UWA zoom for wider landscape/cityscape stuff), I would not hesitate to buy it.



If I used would need one for the occasional big DOF shot, I would also not hesitate to get the ridiculously cheap but quite good stopped down to f8 Tokina 19-35mm (not in production anymore).
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1292600904' post='5074']

How the announced Tokina FF UWA zoom will perform is not known yet, but it might be a good one.

[/quote]



However, also one that doesn't take filters, unfortunately.



-- Markus

PuxaVida

[quote name='mst' timestamp='1292601085' post='5075']

However, also one that doesn't take filters, unfortunately.



-- Markus

[/quote]



Yep... and I think that makes it a possible second (or maybe 1st) choice until we see some test results... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Wink' />



Serkan

kentcp

Wow !! Thanks to everyone sharing your view and info here...Also, special thanks to Markus.



In the means time, look like 14-24 f2.8 is the best choice if budget is not an issue.



As for filter, I notice market start produce special filter kit for 14-24mm:



1) Cokin CE499 X-Pro kit

http://www.adorama.com/CKCW499.html



2) Lee Filter - SW150 Holder System

http://www.leefiltersusa.com/camera/news...39E9E47F5/



Let me study the Zeiss...