Would you buy the Nikkor 17-35 for D700 today?
Just wanted to get your opinion on whatever the 17-35 2.8 nikkor is still a gem on FX or maybe if it is better to look for something else. I see some reviews on photozone.de that seems like it has soft edges and some samples pics from other places seem to say that there is much distortion when looking et trees and buildings...
I have the opertunity to buy one 2nd hand, but I am not sure if it would be a good choice for the D700 (will buy in summer)
Other options could be the cheaper 18-35 2nd hand or a new Tamron 28-75 or Sigma 24-70.
If the 24 or 28-70mm Nikkors are not on the list then the 17-35 2.8 is a great option. I'd choose it over the 18-35 2nd hand or a new Tamron 28-75 or Sigma 24-70.
I thought about who I am... and realized I was an
unformed, unreconciled imagery, without "GOD"
and some other Nikon stuff
Anyone know something about sample variations in the 17-35????
The 17-35 was, and possibly still is, considered one of Nikon's best landscape lenses. It is not really intended as an all-rounder like the 24-70.
Nikkors: 17-55mm f2.8, 18-200mm f3.5-f4.5 VR, 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR, 35mm f2, 50mm f1.8, 55mm f2.8 AI-S micro, 105mm f2.8 VR micro
Other Lenses: Tokina 12-24 f4, Tamron 75-300mm f4-5.6 LD macro
Stuff: Nikon SB800, Nikon MBD200, Gitzo 1327 Tripod w/RRS BH-55LR Ballhead, Sekonic L-358 meter
Originally Posted by erichlund
D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
I just did!
I purchased a 17-35mm for my D700. It really comes into it's own on a FX sensor. There is distortion at wide angles but I think this goes with the territory - it is not a miracle lens. It is built to full pro. level finish you'd expect from a Nikkor f2.8 lens. Here is a recent wide angle shot from my garden, shot into the sun at day-break - not technically great - more a test shot really.
(the tree in the middle does bend to the right - it's not distortion!
I am sure there are better examples from this lens - but it needs to be treated as a wide-angle zoom (if you know what I mean).
Maybe Nikon will bring out a new edition - who knows? But I would grap the 17-35 f2.8 Nikkor over a Sigma or Tamron etc - but it's a personal choice dependent partly on budget I would guess.
Surrey, United Kingdom
Nikon D700; Nikkor 17-35 f2.8; Nikkor 24-70 f2.8; Nikkor 70-200 f2.8; Nikkor Micro 105mm; Tamron 24-135 f3.5-f5.6
Personally, I'm happy with the 14-24/2.8 and 24-70/2.8.
I have not personally tried the 17-35/2.8, but for landscapes and indoor wide shots, I think the 14-24/2.8 is worth it.
Distortion is virtually nonexistent on the 14-24/2.8. It sounds like it's a little higher on the 17-35/2.8.
If you can try a 14-24/2.8 and 17-35/2.8 at a local camera store, do so. I think your concerns will be addressed.
I bought the 17-35 brand new when I got my D700 and love it. I don't think the 14-24 are really the same animal and I also wouldn't compare the range to the Tamron 28-75 (which I have) or the nikkor 24-70.
If you are worried about distortion, it really rocks for architecture at around 24-28mm. If I could get one at a bargain, I would snatch it up.
nikon D700 | D200 | D50 - nikkor 17-35 f2.8 | 35-70 f2.8 | 70-200 f2.8 | 50 f1.8 | Tamron 28-75 f2.8 | 2@SB600 | SB-800
Thanks for the replies.
I do not have to cash to buy it or any other high end Nikkor new, but an opertunity to buy it 2nd hand.
it is just that the new Sigma 24-70 HSM is also out.
I was thinking of this linie up when I get my D700_
Often when I see sample shots with the 17-35 they have really soft corners and trees and buildings are bending over in the sides of the pictures
would you need the 17-35mm in the second list of kit? Dont think you would (i wouldnt pay the extra for focal lengths you have elsewhere.
Originally Posted by Webmonkey
However, it is superior to both lenses I would suspect