Is it worth to buy the Nikon 17-35 f2.8 now ?


blueblood

New Member
Oct 21, 2012
255
0
0
West
#1
There are a few UWA zooms for FF. The 17-35 f2.8 being 13 years old, and already discontinued. The 14-24 f2.8 being the most expensive, but can only use slot in filters. And the 16-35 f4 being the latest and having good reviews.

My heart goes to 17-35 f2.8, less distortion at widest compared to 16-35f4, though softer at the corners when wide open. Rumours of the 16-35 f2.8VR will be coming in 2014. But could be more expensive than the 14-24f2.8.

For owners of the 17-35 f2.8, is it worth to buy now?
 

Dfive

Senior Member
Nov 20, 2008
3,141
10
38
Singapore lah....
#2
You'll have much debate on this one... ding ding... like in a boxing ring !!

I love mine, its the toughest Nikkor Zoom lens around !! Working pro's will also say the same. ( sure its soft on a D800 for me not a worry and Im fussy with my lens selection, see below. )

Some say the motor dies, I'll also say the 16-35 will also die after 8-13 yrs so its a non issue for me... as will all AF-S Lenses eventually ( its electronic after all, motors won't outlive you or your cat so no need to stress. )

Some also say the motor was improved sometime in 2006-07 ( its 18 grams heavier after this, maybe it was changed ? I don't know, Nor do I care. )

Summary I like mine, don't use it as much since I got my 24 1.4 nikkor ( my Fav Glass. )

CHEERS. :) :D
 

Last edited:

Blur Shadow

Senior Member
Sep 17, 2005
4,886
4
0
#3
I can share my experience with that lens.

It is certainly a well-built lens, although the SWM is known to fail after some time. Optically, it is sharp in the center, weak in the corners.

If you dig the f/2.8, then it is a possible alternative to the 14-24mm.

I don't know where a new set can be found, but if you are looking to purchase it new, I think it is worthwhile to consider the current wide-angle offerings from Nikon.
 

Luminare

Senior Member
May 25, 2012
896
13
18
S'pore
#4
I don't own the 17-35mm f/2.8, I have to say that the range it provides is truly versatile.

If you truly need the versatility of US of 17mm all the way to 35mm and at f/2.8 on the tele end for subject isolation or at the wide end for astro type of photography, then this is the only current UWA to 35mm on F mount until the 16-35mm f/2.8G arrive.

For UWA, f/2.8 is used mainly for low light and astro type of photography. At the UWA end, even at f/2.8 quite a pair bit can still be in focus which means you can potentially hand hold it. The 16-35mm f/4 VR provides the same strength with VR.

At UWA focal lengths, the field curvature distortion will be present. Distortion on the 16-35mm f/4 VR can be easily corrected unless you are focusing too close where the distortion become compounded.

The battle and torn in between the 17-35mm f/2.8, 14-24mm f/2.8 and 16-35mm f/4 VR will be here to stay until the 16-35mm f/2.8 materialises.

For me, I need the f/2.8 for astro type of photography, hence I opted for the 14-24mm f/2.8G and this is the lens that is almost glued to my D800 for my landscape needs.





There are a few UWA zooms for FF. The 17-35 f2.8 being 13 years old, and already discontinued. The 14-24 f2.8 being the most expensive, but can only use slot in filters. And the 16-35 f4 being the latest and having good reviews.

My heart goes to 17-35 f2.8, less distortion at widest compared to 16-35f4, though softer at the corners when wide open. Rumours of the 16-35 f2.8VR will be coming in 2014. But could be more expensive than the 14-24f2.8.

For owners of the 17-35 f2.8, is it worth to buy now?
 

jnet6

Senior Member
Apr 21, 2004
8,179
0
36
not here often anymore
#5
I don't know where a new set can be found, but if you are looking to purchase it new, I think it is worthwhile to consider the current wide-angle offerings from Nikon.
I can still see new set of 17-35 still selling in the some local shop, but the thing is do you mind the price?
 

Dec 30, 2008
76
0
6
39
#6
Happen to look back at past photos & I thought I should do the 17-35 justice :)

I'm an ex-owner of the 17-35. If not for it weight, I'm sure to keep this lens for as long as it works. Useful range, produce sharp images which will be mostly keepers. I have this mounted ~80% of the time when I travel on vocation.

I'm just a man on the street, photographing for my family mostly. I'm still using the d700. My personal comments for the 17-35, in short:

Pros/Cons - everything are great except the weight
 

cactibin

Senior Member
Dec 16, 2010
2,773
1
38
40
Singapore, North East
www.flickr.com
#7
Hi,

I am thinking of getting as well but scare Nikon might release a newer version.

I have checked out the price about a year ago and its selling near to 3k. Not worth to get it locally. I have been to HK and they are selling non-grey set for 1k less. Alternatively, you can look for grey set at Technogadgets online @ < 2k.

Cheers.
 

Last edited:

Blur Shadow

Senior Member
Sep 17, 2005
4,886
4
0
#8
I can still see new set of 17-35 still selling in the some local shop, but the thing is do you mind the price?
I'd imagine it to be still over S$2,000? I think it should be cheaper in HK, although one should call ahead to check for stock availability.

Indeed, at the price that I am assuming (+/- S$2,000), I would not consider the Nikon AF-S 17-35mm.
 

Blur Shadow

Senior Member
Sep 17, 2005
4,886
4
0
#9
Happen to look back at past photos & I thought I should do the 17-35 justice :)

I'm an ex-owner of the 17-35. If not for it weight, I'm sure to keep this lens for as long as it works. Useful range, produce sharp images which will be mostly keepers. I have this mounted ~80% of the time when I travel on vocation.

I'm just a man on the street, photographing for my family mostly. I'm still using the d700. My personal comments for the 17-35, in short:

Pros/Cons - everything are great except the weight
I'd say most high-end Nikon FX wide-angle zoom lenses are heavy anyway. The lighter ones will be the variable aperture ones.
 

Blur Shadow

Senior Member
Sep 17, 2005
4,886
4
0
#10
Hi,

I am thinking of getting as well but scare Nikon might release a newer version.

I have checked out the price about a year ago and its selling near to 3k. Not worth to get it locally. I have been to HK and they are selling non-grey set for 1k less. Alternatively, you can look for grey set at Technogadgets online @ < 2k.

Cheers.
Near S$3,000?!? Woah! That is way too expensive. I would certainly pick a AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8 or the AF-S 16-35mm f/4 any day.
 

nightwolf75

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 18, 2003
17,857
14
38
really MORE diaper changes
#11
i used to have the 17-35mm. great lens. and it has one big advantage over the 14-24mm... you don't need expensive attachments to put specialty filters, if you need them for landscapes. ;)
 

jnet6

Senior Member
Apr 21, 2004
8,179
0
36
not here often anymore
#12
Wow... Looks like all current/ex 17-35 users has come in here & post comment.
Happy Boxing Day to all.
 

#13
great optics, with screw in filters a possibility.


however, old AFS technology. you might want to google for AFS17-35 AFS motor breakdown. I changed my AFS motor twice. the 3rd time it starts to squeak, I got rid of it.


finally settled down with the AFS16-35 f4G. what a great lens!
 

Luminare

Senior Member
May 25, 2012
896
13
18
S'pore
#14
Off topic but those seeking light weight but still want UWA, the mirrorless cameras do have impressive lens lined up and they do produce excellent quality images.

At this juncture, for keep sake purposes, these mirrorless cameras are definitely up to it and above expectations.

Have yet to PP the raw files which I will after I use it for my coming trip.

Am covering the street photography range now with a Fujifilm X-E2 with a 18-55mm f/2.8-4 kit lens. There is a Fuji made 10-24mm f/4 lens for those who need UWA.
 

blueblood

New Member
Oct 21, 2012
255
0
0
West
#15
however, old AFS technology. you might want to google for AFS17-35 AFS motor breakdown. I changed my AFS motor twice. the 3rd time it starts to squeak, I got rid of it.
When did you own this lens? I understand that the motor issue has improved after the newer version of the motor replacement.
Hence the weight is slightly heavier.
 

#16
When did you own this lens? I understand that the motor issue has improved after the newer version of the motor replacement.
Hence the weight is slightly heavier.
i don't know about it being replaced with new motors and such for later versions. never heard of that rumour or information and furthermore, if i'm not mistaken this lens has been discontinued, so I do not know if the information is accurate?



i owned the lens from 2006 to 2010 (changed motors twice - S$800plus each time and yes, I was an NPS member back then and still so expensive)?

its been a while.




from 2010 to 2012, i was using AFD18-35. you can probably say that I do not have much luck with the AFS17-35.

your mileage and experiences with this lens might be very different from mine.


regardless, the AFS16-35 f4G can be had for around S$1.8k brand new and its a really wonderful lens. no issues with the AFS motor.
 

Sep 29, 2010
366
2
18
#17
Since Im so cheepo, I'll get NIKKOR 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED and save the rest for something else.
You can even slide in colkin filter.
I too will look at Tokina 17-35mm F4 lens.
KenRockWell - 'This Tokina 17-35mm f/4 is as sharp as Nikon's professional 17-35mm f/2.8 AF-S'
 

ageha

Senior Member
Apr 29, 2011
5,841
9
0
Earth
www.flickr.com
#18
Since Im so cheepo, I'll get NIKKOR 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED and save the rest for something else.
You can even slide in colkin filter.
I too will look at Tokina 17-35mm F4 lens.
KenRockWell - 'This Tokina 17-35mm f/4 is as sharp as Nikon's professional 17-35mm f/2.8 AF-S'
The new AFS 18-35 G ED is actually an awesome lens, renders extremely clean and is lightweight.
 

Sep 29, 2010
366
2
18
#19
The new AFS 18-35 G ED is actually an awesome lens, renders extremely clean and is lightweight.
and some shops are selling as low as $803 :think:
 

Top Bottom