Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED - Printable Version +- Opticallimits (https://forum.opticallimits.com) +-- Forum: Forums (https://forum.opticallimits.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4) +--- Forum: Just Talk (https://forum.opticallimits.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=17) +--- Thread: Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED (/showthread.php?tid=3488) |
Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED - kentcp - 12-17-2010 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 Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED - wojtt - 12-17-2010 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='' /> Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED - mst - 12-17-2010 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 Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED - Brightcolours - 12-17-2010 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). Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED - mst - 12-17-2010 [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 Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED - PuxaVida - 12-17-2010 [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 Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED - kentcp - 12-18-2010 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... |