Nikon 17-35 2.8 - any good?

NeilA1975

NeilA1975

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5,026
Name
Neil
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,

Been thinking about getting rid of my prime collection for a while now and replacing it with one of these to couple with my D810.
Aware that some suffer from a squeaky AF motor, however these are cheap enough used for the potential issue not to worry me plus I mainly manual focus.
So ideally would like some honest opinions as to what to expect IQ wise - I used to own a newer 16-35 but didn't really like the rendering and what appeared to be a severe lack of micro-contrast so not really an option.
Currently own a Zeiss 18mm, 21mm and an older Nikon AIS 24mm 2.8 which are all excellent but a PITA to change out whilst in the field.

Opinions please!

Cheers
Neil
 
Hi Neil,

For many years I have used primes, but genuinely understand the frustration of chaining lenses, or even more frustrating, the times you should but can't be bothered too.

I regularly recommend people to buy zoom lenses, and I have missed shots before shooting with primes that a zoom would have got when the light is changing quickly. *

So, when switching to Nikon with the intention of getting a zoom I done a shed load of research and came to the same conclusions as the guys above, part from the 14-24 Nikons zooms are not that good unfortunately. However, the 1.8g plastic primes I got are fantastic and save weight at the same time so pleased with them.

I reckon when you talk about microcontast and pop from your Zeiss lenses you are not going to get that in a Nikon lens at all to that extent, let alone a zoom. Having used Sigma Art lenses in the past what I am waiting for is a wide angle zoom from them. The 24-35mm is literally considered to be 3 primes in 1, it is that good. But the focal length would not suit me, and definitely not you. Hopefully they come up with a 16/18 - 30/35 Art zoom for full frame, that would be excellent. Probably heavy, but a good zoom option. Until then, stick with your primes...?!

*Caveat to all this is I love approaching a scene, deciding if I want to exaggerate wide perspective or compress it, then mounting a lens and moving my feet and the camera position. I think it actually leads to better photos, zooms can make you lazy...
 
Craig_85 said:
Hi Neil,

For many years I have used primes, but genuinely understand the frustration of chaining lenses, or even more frustrating, the times you should but can't be bothered too.

I regularly recommend people to buy zoom lenses, and I have missed shots before shooting with primes that a zoom would have got when the light is changing quickly. *

So, when switching to Nikon with the intention of getting a zoom I done a shed load of research and came to the same conclusions as the guys above, part from the 14-24 Nikons zooms are not that good unfortunately. However, the 1.8g plastic primes I got are fantastic and save weight at the same time so pleased with them.

I reckon when you talk about microcontast and pop from your Zeiss lenses you are not going to get that in a Nikon lens at all to that extent, let alone a zoom. Having used Sigma Art lenses in the past what I am waiting for is a wide angle zoom from them. The 24-35mm is literally considered to be 3 primes in 1, it is that good. But the focal length would not suit me, and definitely not you. Hopefully they come up with a 16/18 - 30/35 Art zoom for full frame, that would be excellent. Probably heavy, but a good zoom option. Until then, stick with your primes...?!

*Caveat to all this is I love approaching a scene, deciding if I want to exaggerate wide perspective or compress it, then mounting a lens and moving my feet and the camera position. I think it actually leads to better photos, zooms can make you lazy...
Click to expand...

I have sigma ART 35mm, Sigma ART24mm and nikkor 20mm f1.8

They’re so much better, particularly in the corners than the zooms. Only the 24-70 is acceptable the 16-35 at certain FLs is good but meh, I don’t like it but it has a place in my bag for now.

I think zooms actually help you focus and fine tune the composition and help you include and exclude what you want as you can fine tune the composition.
 
Last edited:
I have a 17-35 and use it about 60% of the time with the 24-70 filling the rest of the gaps.

It is a bit soft down the left side and in the corners. I did try swapping up to the 16-35 but had massive problems with the one I bought off here. Ended up losing hundreds of pounds on it and been put off buying used on here by the experience. The lens was very poor when put next to my mediocre 17-35 and apparently the quality on the 16-35 varies between copies.

The 14-24 puts me off with the large filters and I do like the option of a zoom.

So - the 17-35 will stay for now and I will keep hoping that the composition needs over 24mm.
 
Dave Semmens said:
I have a 17-35 and use it about 60% of the time with the 24-70 filling the rest of the gaps.

It is a bit soft down the left side and in the corners. I did try swapping up to the 16-35 but had massive problems with the one I bought off here. Ended up losing hundreds of pounds on it and been put off buying used on here by the experience. The lens was very poor when put next to my mediocre 17-35 and apparently the quality on the 16-35 varies between copies.

The 14-24 puts me off with the large filters and I do like the option of a zoom.

So - the 17-35 will stay for now and I will keep hoping that the composition needs over 24mm.
Click to expand...

that's a shame - i used to have a 16-35 f4 vr and it really was super sharp. I sold it a few years ago and have a 14-24 which is super sharp as well but a bit heavy to be honest and i'm starting to get annoyed by the filter situation. I'm actually thinking about gettinga 16-35 again in place of the 14-24!!
 
I will say that the person I got the 16-35 from was happy with the results from the lens and had no idea it had any issues.

It was only comparing it side by side with my 17-35 that made it clear.

It took Fixation 3 attempts to find the issue! I had to keep insisting they look again.

The front element was slightly missaligned and they thought it may get repaired by Nikon as a manufacturing defect. No such luck :(

Once it was repaired I still did not think that it was any better than the 17-35 so sold it to MPB as I could get more money back on it than the 17-35 and had to recoup some money.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top