12-17-2010, 02:14 PM
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='
' />
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='' />