17-35mm sharpness at 17mm f2.8

[shockingpants]

I am aware that it is a trinity WA angle lens that is favoured by many pros around. I would like to get one now (instead of the 17-55mm) for my DX camera in view that I will likely upgrade to an FX in the future. At 17-35mm, it equivalent to 25-50mm, which I think is good enough for most events I want to cover using a DX cam since I have a 50mm and a telephoto already. Which brings me to the qns, Is the 17-35mm good for events in terms of shaprness? Landscape is beautiful with the lens stepped down, but if I do get it, its because the f2.8 gives me the freedom to shoot in darker conditions with greater flexibility. However, recently, I tested 2 second hand copies and they are apparently soft, very soft at 17mm f/2.8. Here are some sample pics from one of the test:

1. 17mm f/2.8 AF (100% crop)


2.17mm f/2.8 MF (100% crop)


3. 17mm f/8 AF (100% crop)


If your browser has problem viewing the photos, you can try copying the target address into your browser or viewing it here:
http://macadphotos.blogspot.com/2009...-100-crop.html

Original photos can be viewed here:
http://macadphotos.blogspot.com/2009...35mm-test.html

Do note that the shutter speeds are well above 1/100 which should eliminate hand shake.
The 100% crop is a center crop, the very place I focused on, so the softness is unlikely a result of shallow DOF (especially since I used AF and MF to ensure the focusing was precise).

Fellow photographers out there, do you have similar experiences or is it really just a result of bad copies? Is it sharp only because professionals stepped down to f/4 or higher to shoot landscape, meaning is should not be used at f/2.8 under normal circumstances for other types of photography?

It will be helpful if you can post a 100% crop of sample photos by your lens!

Thanks for reading

[John Mama]

This lens is relatively soft at 2.8 (everything's soft compared to the 14-24!) and its softness at this aperture is well documented, but those samples are awful. The "softness" I've seen of this lens at this aperture was much better than your samples really, so I'd put it down to bad copies and/or being badly looked after.

My 17-35 at 2.8 looks better than the sample at f8, for what it's worth.

[shockingpants]

Wow, I see. Anyone else? Is it then plausible that most second hand copies are more likely to be bad copies? haha

[Big Kahuna]

Not sharp meh? I tot it was acceptable.

Let see my test shot....no post process other than resize...ISO400...focus point is about 2cm above(my bad) the "LU" of the word Salute



Another recent one...ISO200...focus on the word PRO

[shockingpants]

Hmm, can't really tell the sharpness from those photos, sorry. Do you have the 100% crop of the photos? Thanks for the photos in any case. Does calibration help? Anyone know how much?

[David Kwok]

17-35 is fuzzy and soft at the corners when wide open. That's about it. But fuzzy and soft in the center shouldn't be the case. 14-24 f2.8 win by all around sharpness when wide open plus very good flare control with its nano coating and wider fov. That's about it.

I kinda feel it your first pic seems weird to me. Shouldn't be that bad.

[shockingpants]

Ironic that the 14-24mm cost less than the 17-35mm first hand....

[David Kwok]

Originally Posted by shockingpants Ironic that the 14-24mm cost less than the 17-35mm first hand....

Indeed....should be a demand supply issue. 14-24 demand is not as high as 17-35 I feel. 17-35 makes a superb all rounder on the wide side, but 14-24 is way too wide for general photography. Normally most ain't too particular about the edges. Eyes will focus on subjects which are normally near the centre area. 17-35 is sharp when wide open at centre too, it's pretty okay. Also 14-24 has no room for filters and therefore makes creativity using filters rather limited. Flares are not as well controlled on 17-35 compared to 14-24 but that's the photographer's skill to place your angle too.

All in all, I would wanna agree that one shouldn't compare 14-24 and 17-35 because they are really designed for different purposes.

That's my 2 cents worth.

[shockingpants]

Agreed. In any case, based on the comments I have gotten so far, I can assume that 17-35mm should be tack sharp wide open at the center wth results similar or close to the 100% crop I get at f/8.

[erictan8888]

17-35mm is indeed not sharp at f2.8....
but your copy seems to be less sharp...
will take a shot at f2.8 and post for you to see once i find the time..

but my copy of 17-35mm is sharpest at f5.6

[erictan8888]

shot taken at f2.8 17mm



f2.8 17mm 100% crop at centre: focus is at the red clothings on the bamboo




f5.6 17mm 100% crop at centre: focus is at the red clothings on the bamboo




notice the sharpness on the air con on the right at f5.6 compared to f2.8
this lens is not noted for its sharpness when shot wide open, but actually at f2.8, it is still pretty good...
i dun see that it is a poor performer... maybe your copy was a lemon....

[bomby929]

Originally Posted by erictan8888 shot taken at f2.8 17mm f2.8 17mm 100% crop at centre: focus is at the red clothings on the bamboo f5.6 17mm 100% crop at centre: focus is at the red clothings on the bamboo notice the sharpness on the air con on the right at f5.6 compared to f2.8 this lens is not noted for its sharpness when shot wide open, but actually at f2.8, it is still pretty good... i dun see that it is a poor performer... maybe your copy was a lemon....

erm... the aircon is not in the same DOF as the red clothe. at f2.8 your DOF is very shallow.. so the aircon to some degree will be out of focus compare to f5.6. So IMHO not a good test leh.

Dun own a 17-35 f2.8, but just expressing my point.

[yyD70S]

The sharpness of the AFS 17-35mm f/2.8 is very acceptable at the centre and more than acceptable in the corners on DX.

On FX, the corners are slightly soft. That's about it.

The AFS 17-55mm f2.8 is a better match for your current DX cam.

In this digital age, even the 'lens first, bodies can wait' safety first no longer applies.

Say, the buy your 24-70mm now ... the 14-24mm 6-12 mths down the road ... making do these 2 lenses with your DX cam now ...

...when a higher MP DSLR come along and you bite it, those 2 creme-de-la-creme lenses would proably be out resolved too! (Unless of course you buy a 1-yr old technology D3/D700).

... don't get what I mean? rewind back 2-5 yrs ...

[Dfive]

Originally Posted by shockingpants Ironic that the 14-24mm cost less than the 17-35mm first hand....

This is because the 17-35 is better made - Its ALL metal.

While the 14-24 and 24-70 are GREAT lenses ( i use both) they have cut some corners on the outside body (both half plastic). That said the inside of the 14-24 has metal frame-work thicker than that of the D3 / D3X body.... this is to mount the glass solid!!

Sharpness aside - Nikon will never build a lens as well as the 17-35 again - It the ABRAMS Tank of the lens world... even the bayonet mount is metal - thats hard to do you know.

[shockingpants]

The 17-55mm is great, but the distortion gets to me quite often when I shoot at 17mm. I personally feel that the distortion on the 17-35mm is minimal even on a FX and I am looking to get it as a replacement. That said, maybe its not a good idea to future proof all my purchases, but I would suppose that most of the current lenses cannot be outresolved by anything less than the D3x or even better anytime soon. In any case, I can pretty much agree that the copies I tested were lemons. Thnx eric for the samples!

[erictan8888]

no problem, and regarding the point you made about distortion, that's one of the reason i got the 17-35mm and not the 17-55mm
17-35mm has almost zero distortion compared to the 17-55mm... especially impt when you take architectural and landscape pics....

[ziggurat2007]

I am thinking about to upgrade my 17-70 to 17-55,
After reading this thread, I feel much confused.
What should I do, but continuing upgrade to FX would kill my pocket.
Ops.

[KopiOkaya]

I had a Nikon 17-35 f2.8 AFS lens, and I feel the main problem of this lens is not its corner softness, but rather the AFS motor fails prematurely. Mine failed just after 1.5 years, and it was used less than 5 times (twice to shoot major events). The lens was stored inside the dry cabinet with properly regulated humidity.

Repairing the AFS motor cost me almost $600 (with some discount). If you own this lens and if it starts making squeaky noise.... beware! The motor is about to fail anytime.

[shockingpants]

Originally Posted by KopiOkaya I had a Nikon 17-35 f2.8 AFS lens, and I feel the main problem of this lens is not its corner softness, but rather the AFS motor fails prematurely. Mine failed just after 1.5 years, and it was used less than 5 times (twice to shoot major events). The lens was stored inside the dry cabinet with properly regulated humidity. Repairing the AFS motor cost me almost $600 (with some discount). If you own this lens and if it starts making squeaky noise.... beware! The motor is about to fail anytime.

Indeed, I have heard of this issue quite frequently, so I shall take my future purchase as a gamble. I have a friend whose 17-35mm have been squeaking for years, but still operating well. He noted that the best way to "fix" the sound is to use the lens often. In fact, one of the lens I tested not too long ago had the squeak without owner's knowledge because he had not used it for 4 years.

Just to OT abit, between 17-55mm and 17-35mm, I would say 17-35mm. For me, both have the focal length I need for event coverage on a DX. (Some may like the 17-55mm for the extra zoom) And when I do upgrade to an Fx, 17-35mm is still usable as a UWA. Optics wise, My take is that 17-55 is much sharper from my personal tests so far even at f/2.8, but it can very well be due to lemons. But for that extra sharpness, you get very bad distortion. So give and take, weigh your budget, decide if you are a sharpness fetish or zero distortion fetish, what kind of photos you like to take, and you are well on your way.

Check out previous cs threads on 17-55mm and 17-35mm if you need more info.

[KopiOkaya]

Originally Posted by shockingpants I have a friend whose 17-35mm have been squeaking for years, but still operating well. He noted that the best way to "fix" the sound is to use the lens often. In fact, one of the lens I tested not too long ago had the squeak without owner's knowledge because he had not used it for 4 years.

I brought my 17-35 f2.8 lens to Steven Lee of Camera Hospital for repair. He highlighted to me one of the main reason why some people complain the 17-35 is not sharp at the corners is the fact that the AFS motors cannot 'lock-in' the focus properly. This is a result of motor failure. As a matter of fact, this lens is sharper than the 17-55. Try some test shots using manual focus at f2.8 and you will see what I mean.