What is wrong with Nikon?

R

retired

Suspended / Banned
Messages
889
Name
Bri
Edit My Images
No
I have now given up on getting my hands on the 17-35 2.8, apparently none in the country, they produce one of the finest lens in the world but do not make them available. :(
Got a good deal from Jessops (yes Jessops) :) on the 24-70 and will make do with that because I suspect Nikon have another wide coming out soon. Of course it could be that they want to shift their 14-24, plenty of those about if you want one.
 
Yep, folks are always shifting on the 14-24 (me included) - super optics but fairly impractical, and easy to find used.

The 17-35 is a super lens, alongside the 300mm f/4 AF-S its my favourite auto-focus Nikkor I think.

Not sure if Nikon plan to replace it - I suspect they see the 14-24 as the way forward (which too be fair is better optically than the 17-35 wide open)
 
Grays of Westminster have the 17-35 in stock
 
I don't think there's a new wideangle coming...

if you look at the lens lineup in the past you had:

17-35mm 2.8
then
35-70mm 2.8
and
70-200mm 2.8

this would give you coverage between 17mm and 200mm in three 'fast zoom' lenses, all with the same 'switchover' point

now you've got:

14-24mm 2.8
and
24-70mm 2.8
with
70-200mm 2.8 vr....

... again, in 3 lenses 'seamlessly' from (even wider) wide angle up to 200mm.

at least that's how i make sense of it. and do agree that the overlap between the 17-35mm and the 24-70mm is useful for when you don't want to carry all three zooms (shudder). :bonk:

would be very interested in trying the 14-24mm though...
 
Isn't the same true for the 300/4. A great lens, but really hard to get your hands on. I know I paid way too much for mine, but I wanted it and don't usually buy 2nd hand as I like to know I have some warranty should I need it.
 
PsiFox said:
Grays of Westminster have the 17-35 in stock
Click to expand...

not when I spoke to them this afternoon, in fact Nikon gave me a list of suppliers within 150 miles from me and no one had one.
Warehouse Express (where I normally buy) had the lens hood but no lens.
There are two on fleabay and I am watching those but they are not mint and no box.
 
specialman said:
It's a hard life, ain't it ;)
Click to expand...

Pat I didn't mean it to be quite like that, what I'm saying is, I will use the 24-70 until I find a nice wide I can use with filters, one reason why I don't want the 14-24.

still a hard life!
 
... for £1675 !!!!!! just checked on their web site and nothing showing. I wouldn't pay that sort of money anyway but thanks.

Microglobe claim to have it for £1299. didn't know about these, just checked on their web site and you have to log in first.

The 17-35 is a super lens, alongside the 300mm f/4 AF-S its my favourite auto-focus Nikkor I think.
Andy I think you bought one from Pete and I only just missed that one.
 
What is wrong with Nikon?

For one,they are overpricing thier new lenses, but as people keep catching it in the goolies and stumping up for the new lenses,then they ain`t never going to change.
 
17-35mm - love it - got mine for under £700 :) (a while ago) - and NO - it's not for sale :)
 
awp said:
17-35mm - love it - got mine for under £700 :) (a while ago) - and NO - it's not for sale :)
Click to expand...

Now that is called "rubbing it in" Andrew...........:lol:
 
I have the Sigma 17-35 ƒ2.8 nothing wrong with that lens and its a lot cheaper than the Nikon..

why not have a look for one of those..
 
Shutterman said:
I have the Sigma 17-35 ƒ2.8 nothing wrong with that lens and its a lot cheaper than the Nikon..

why not have a look for one of those..
Click to expand...

got it for the canon. Considered going for the 16-35 Canon version... nooooooo point whatsoever (for me)
 
The 14-24 is lovely optically but the front element construction people hate for a number of reasons, not least of which is because it won't take a filter :(

The 17-35 obviously is "old school" and for exactly the reason above preferred by many and is a useful length for FX users...
 
desantnik said:
The 14-24 is lovely optically but the front element construction people hate for a number of reasons, not least of which is because it won't take a filter :(

The 17-35 obviously is "old school" and for exactly the reason above preferred by many and is a useful length for FX users...
Click to expand...


Yep...there's no school like the old school...:D

...says he with his 17-35 and his old 28-70 f/2.8 (although the new 24-70 is quite nice as well - using it out here instead of trashing my own optics in the sand).

I have the 14-24 as well and while it's a fine peice of glass, that exposed front element is no good out here. Been used twice.
 
What about the Tamron 17-35, meant to be very very close in image quality to the Nikon.
 
In case you're interested, the 17-35 AF-S are available new in Saudi for just about £900! The last time I checked was about 3 weeks ago, and I may be sure it's still available.

If you're interested, let me know and I can check availability again, serial number (to get a rough date as to when it was manufactured) and the price to ship it to UK via UPS / DHL etc.

If you add VAT and Import Duties, I think you're looking at a price very similar to what's the going rate in UK; but at least you'd get one .. and a new one at that :)
 
thanks Wail, I am going to contact Grays again today, having just spent £1200 I need to justify having the two in my bag. My heart was set on the 17-35 and I would of preferred that one over the 24-70. I have a wedding on the 21st and I now think I made the right choice, would still like a 17-35 but not at silly money.
Tested the 50 1.4 on the 700 last night, I was quite blown away with what it could do. :)
 
retired said:
thanks Wail, I am going to contact Grays again today, having just spent £1200 I need to justify having the two in my bag. My heart was set on the 17-35 and I would of preferred that one over the 24-70. I have a wedding on the 21st and I now think I made the right choice, would still like a 17-35 but not at silly money.
Tested the 50 1.4 on the 700 last night, I was quite blown away with what it could do. :)
Click to expand...

TBH now that I have FX cameras, the 17-35 will seldom get used apart from the occasional outing...
The 50 f/1.4 is awesome and I find I'm using it more and more for the 'head-shots' of the Brigade command-Group, instead of the 24-70 f/2.8 - uber-sharp and gives a really nice bokeh wide-open...

Looks like I'll be whittling my collection down to the 17-35mm f/2.8; 28-70mm f/2.8 (my own preference for a 'standard' zoom) and the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR
 
retired said:
thanks Wail, I am going to contact Grays again today, having just spent £1200 I need to justify having the two in my bag. My heart was set on the 17-35 and I would of preferred that one over the 24-70. I have a wedding on the 21st and I now think I made the right choice, would still like a 17-35 but not at silly money.
Tested the 50 1.4 on the 700 last night, I was quite blown away with what it could do. :)
Click to expand...


You're more than welcome.

I've just spoken with the local supplier and they do have them in stock. Price is £900.

If you are interested, please take this to PM. My sister and mother are flying to UK on 20th Nov.; they could carry it over to you. This would save a bundle on the couriers.


Arkady said:
TBH now that I have FX cameras, the 17-35 will seldom get used apart from the occasional outing...
Click to expand...

Same here, on a DX the 17-35 was good ... but with FX I, too, find that the 24-70 to be ample wide for my needs.

It's a funny thing getting the suitable mm! I did a relatively stupid thing and bought the 45mm PC-E instead of the 24mm :bang::bang: ... not wide enough for achitechture yet perfect for landscapes ...
 
Arkady said:
Looks like I'll be whittling my collection down to the 17-35mm f/2.8; 28-70mm f/2.8 (my own preference for a 'standard' zoom) and the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR
Click to expand...

I think you are about right with your kit, once all my DX stuff has gone it will leave me with the D300, D700, 300 f4, 70-200 VR 2.8, 50 1.4 and my new 24-70. I would like to add the 17-35 but will test out the 24-70 first.
I am now considering selling the D300 because I shot the moon with the 300 f4 with a X2 and was pleased with the pic. I don't think I need the extra reach the D300 will give me.

Thanks again Wail....I'll give that some thought after a test with the new bit of kit.
 
I got mine from HK duty paid for about £950 via digital rev, was more than 12 months ago though, arrived 2 days after ordering
 
retired said:
Microglobe claim to have it for £1299. didn't know about these, just checked on their web site and you have to log in first.
Click to expand...

Just out of interest, Microglobe are located just round the corner from where I work. I've bought from them over the counter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top