Nikkor lens 17-35mm F2.8

Benign · 5th March 2005

Hi Guys/gals,
If I already owned the AF-S 17-80mm, should I upgrade to Nikkor 17-35mm f2.8?
How much difference in term of picture quality between the two zoom lenses?

Thankss

KNIGHT ONG · 5th March 2005

Originally Posted by Benign

Hi Guys/gals,
If I already owned the AF-S 17-80mm, should I upgrade to Nikkor 17-35mm f2.8?
How much difference in term of picture quality between the two zoom lenses?

Thankss

SInce when Nikon came out 17-80mm lens ??

Benign · 5th March 2005

Paiseh ......brain not functioning too well. Cold weather

It is supposed to be AF-S 18-70mm.

user111 · 5th March 2005

lol...17-80

if u want f2.8 and better optical image quality and more weight then go for it

espn · 5th March 2005

Comparing a $400 vs $3K len should give you a lot to think of in terms of build, optical, contrast, colours, speed and lots more

KNIGHT ONG · 5th March 2005

Originally Posted by espn

Comparing a $400 vs $3K len should give you a lot to think of in terms of build, optical, contrast, colours, speed and lots more

yup yup .. the pictures quality is different ..

BUY BUY BUY

...

snowspeeder · 5th March 2005

Originally Posted by Benign

Paiseh ......brain not functioning too well. Cold weather
It is supposed to be AF-S 18-70mm.

From what others are saying, the diff should be significant.
I didn't know melbourne has cold weather at this time of the year?

Gymrat76 · 5th March 2005

From another perspective:

"..uncorrected chromatic abberation or lack of flat field focus capability may cause a lens to slightly soften the corners of images when mounted on a 35mm camera. But these issues are likely not as visible when using the D70. To my eye, there is no discernable difference in optical quality between the expensive Nikkor 17-35 f/2.8D AF-S and the inexpensive Nikkor 18-70 f/3.5-4.5, at least when mounted on the D70. But there is when mounted on a 35mm body."

Thom Hogan, Complete Guide to the D70

snowspeeder · 5th March 2005

Originally Posted by Gymrat76

From another perspective:

"..uncorrected chromatic abberation or lack of flat field focus capability may cause a lens to slightly soften the corners of images when mounted on a 35mm camera. But these issues are likely not as visible when using the D70. To my eye, there is no discernable difference in optical quality between the expensive Nikkor 17-35 f/2.8D AF-S and the inexpensive Nikkor 18-70 f/3.5-4.5, at least when mounted on the D70. But there is when mounted on a 35mm body."

Thom Hogan, Complete Guide to the D70

I will have to disagree on this. Using the kit lens on my D70, I sometimes can visibly detect the "soften corners", both on screen and on print. This has been confirmed by some fellow users.

espn · 5th March 2005

Originally Posted by Gymrat76

From another perspective:

"..uncorrected chromatic abberation or lack of flat field focus capability may cause a lens to slightly soften the corners of images when mounted on a 35mm camera. But these issues are likely not as visible when using the D70. To my eye, there is no discernable difference in optical quality between the expensive Nikkor 17-35 f/2.8D AF-S and the inexpensive Nikkor 18-70 f/3.5-4.5, at least when mounted on the D70. But there is when mounted on a 35mm body."

Thom Hogan, Complete Guide to the D70

I won't know, but the last time somebody using both slapped them on a D70 and took two shots, when he saw the 18-70, he was ok, but when he saw the images from a 17-35, he was WOW. And that was just on the LCD of the D70.

Maybe there is or isn't a difference

scanner · 5th March 2005

Originally Posted by Gymrat76

From another perspective:

"..uncorrected chromatic abberation or lack of flat field focus capability may cause a lens to slightly soften the corners of images when mounted on a 35mm camera. But these issues are likely not as visible when using the D70. To my eye, there is no discernable difference in optical quality between the expensive Nikkor 17-35 f/2.8D AF-S and the inexpensive Nikkor 18-70 f/3.5-4.5, at least when mounted on the D70. But there is when mounted on a 35mm body."

Thom Hogan, Complete Guide to the D70

Interesting. But have you compared it personally?
I've seen what a 18-70 and a 17-35 len shot taken with D70 on a similar subject. I can tell you there are great difference in the image quality.

The len distortion, flare control, colour rendition and etc.. is no where close to a 17-35, be it on any DSLR or SLR camera. Maybe except the zoom range of 18-70 offers a better choice.

Gymrat76 · 5th March 2005

Originally Posted by scanner

Interesting. But have you compared it personally?
I've seen what a 18-70 and a 17-35 len shot taken with D70 on a similar subject. I can tell you there are great difference in the image quality.
The len distortion, flare control, colour rendition and etc.. is no where close to a 17-35, be it on any DSLR or SLR camera. Maybe except the zoom range of 18-70 offers a better choice.

Just posting another perspective, have not used it personally... certainly I know that old saying "you get what you pay for"..

I can't afford the 17-35, but am perfectly happy with my 18-70mm, no complaints so far, so no cause for upgrade

scanner · 6th March 2005

Originally Posted by Gymrat76

Just posting another perspective, have not used it personally... certainly I know that old saying "you get what you pay for"..

I can't afford the 17-35, but am perfectly happy with my 18-70mm, no complaints so far, so no cause for upgrade

No worries, it will always depends on your need/want/requirment to upgrade.

snowspeeder · 6th March 2005

I also cannot afford the 17-35mm f2.8. So I'm contemplating on the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 @ S$720.00. Rather good review at a fraction of the cost.

ztsen · 6th March 2005

i will recommend you Nikon 17-55mm DX F2.8. this lens is superb.

Originally Posted by Benign

Hi Guys/gals,
If I already owned the AF-S 17-80mm, should I upgrade to Nikkor 17-35mm f2.8?
How much difference in term of picture quality between the two zoom lenses?

Thankss

icarus · 6th March 2005

Is the 17 wide end still useful after the 1.5x crop factor for DSLRs?

user111 · 6th March 2005

17x1.5=25.5mm

should be wide enough since i feel that anything less than 28mm (effective) is already very wide..hehe

nightpiper · 6th March 2005

Originally Posted by Gymrat76

..... there is no discernable difference in optical quality between the expensive Nikkor 17-35 f/2.8D AF-S and the inexpensive Nikkor 18-70 f/3.5-4.5, at least when mounted on the D70. But there is when mounted on a 35mm body."

Thom Hogan, Complete Guide to the D70

dun know what he's talking about. mount a DX lens on a 35mm camera for comparision? its like looking thru the key-hole with so much black in the pic, if a DX lens is used on a film body. how to gauge the quality like that? anyway, the 17-35 is definitely far far SUPERIOR compared to the 18-70 IN EVERY ASPECT.

Benign · 6th March 2005

The reason I asked about the lens was I came across a 2ndhand one selling for abt Aud1kplus....thinking by selling my 18-70 and top up another 700plus. I can have a betta quality lens. It became very tempting to me lor.
However, I need to take into consideration about its value and my need. Is it necessarily to have the slight edge in quality...and pay a higher price? Especially for an amateur? I am not so sure.....
Among the nikkor lens I took into consideration were:

AF-S 12-24mm DX
AF 20mm 2.8 D
AF-S 17-35mm 2.8 DX

I choose nikkor coz of its resale value.

b18 · 6th March 2005

I assume you are using a DX body .... go down to Camera Exchange and have a look at their 17-55 DX there ... $1700 .. maybe if you chat with Dave / John long enuf .. they might lower the price

PS : for me ... I prefer 18-70 DX , cheap , can knock around one ...
wide n fast lens is not really my area of photography .. so I skip buying the AFS 17-35.

5th March 2005	#1
Benign Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Melbourne Posts: 496	Nikkor lens 17-35mm F2.8 Hi Guys/gals, If I already owned the AF-S 17-80mm, should I upgrade to Nikkor 17-35mm f2.8? How much difference in term of picture quality between the two zoom lenses? Thankss

6th March 2005	#16
icarus Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Pasir Ris Posts: 3,234	Is the 17 wide end still useful after the 1.5x crop factor for DSLRs? __________________ Ricoh GR Digital, Minolta Hi-matic 7SII

5th March 2005	#4
user111 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 4,719	lol...17-80 if u want f2.8 and better optical image quality and more weight then go for it

5th March 2005	#5
espn Deregistered Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Planet Nikon Posts: 22,045	Comparing a $400 vs $3K len should give you a lot to think of in terms of build, optical, contrast, colours, speed and lots more

5th March 2005	#8
Gymrat76 Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 1,591	From another perspective: "..uncorrected chromatic abberation or lack of flat field focus capability may cause a lens to slightly soften the corners of images when mounted on a 35mm camera. But these issues are likely not as visible when using the D70. To my eye, there is no discernable difference in optical quality between the expensive Nikkor 17-35 f/2.8D AF-S and the inexpensive Nikkor 18-70 f/3.5-4.5, at least when mounted on the D70. But there is when mounted on a 35mm body." Thom Hogan, Complete Guide to the D70

6th March 2005	#14
snowspeeder Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: 35A East Coast Rd Posts: 3,437	I also cannot afford the 17-35mm f2.8. So I'm contemplating on the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 @ S$720.00. Rather good review at a fraction of the cost.

6th March 2005	#20
b18 Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Kangaroo land Posts: 910	I assume you are using a DX body .... go down to Camera Exchange and have a look at their 17-55 DX there ... $1700 .. maybe if you chat with Dave / John long enuf .. they might lower the price PS : for me ... I prefer 18-70 DX , cheap , can knock around one ... wide n fast lens is not really my area of photography .. so I skip buying the AFS 17-35.