[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='' />



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='' /> - 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='' />

[mst]

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

[Brightcolours]

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).

[mst]

[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='' />



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/articles/ref:N4BA239E9E47F5/



Let me study the Zeiss...