Nikon Wide Angle Lens

[suhaimig]

Anyone owned a Nikon AFS 17-35 f2.8 lens. Do you think, this lens is too expensive for serious amateur. What about subtituting this lens with the prime lens, e.g. 20mm & 28mm. But sometimes having prime lens it difficult to suit the composition which require to change lenses. What have you say?

Cheers.

 

[extreme2]

20mm is a good prime wide lens... alternativey you can get a Nikon AF18-35 zoom.

 

[Ian]

Originally posted by suhaimig
Anyone owned a Nikon AFS 17-35 f2.8 lens. Do you think, this lens is too expensive for serious amateur. What about subtituting this lens with the prime lens, e.g. 20mm & 28mm. But sometimes having prime lens it difficult to suit the composition which require to change lenses. What have you say?

Cheers.

I've owned 2 examples (1 was stolen), the lens is without doubt the best in it's class, not only razor sharp, really resistant to flare and with very low distortion levels when compared to other lenses that cover similar focal lengths.

Image quality suffers a bit of light falloff in the corners (on film) at f2.8 but it's gone by f5.6 and at f8 the image is sharper than just about any prime lens. The use of ultra-thin filters is a must with this lens.

As for cost, yes it's expensive, horrifically so and at near 3,000 bucks it's worth every penny if you are shooting professionally, however the 18-35 Nikkor is worth a look at if you don't mind a slower lens and can't justifiy the cost of the 17-35.

 

[suhaimig]

Thanks Ian,

After I read your message, I decided not to get the 17-35mm lens. Especially, when the lens require thin type filter. On my 20mm lens, I already invested B+W polariser which caused me a boom and I want to spent no more on filter.

Anyway, you said one of the lens has been stolen. Can you share little bit with me or may be you can share little bit of your experience while going out alone with an expensive camera.

Thanks.

 

[Ian]

Originally posted by suhaimig
Thanks Ian,

After I read your message, I decided not to get the 17-35mm lens. Especially, when the lens require thin type filter. On my 20mm lens, I already invested B+W polariser which caused me a boom and I want to spent no more on filter.

Anyway, you said one of the lens has been stolen. Can you share little bit with me or may be you can share little bit of your experience while going out alone with an expensive camera.

Thanks.

It was actually a lot more than one lens stolen when burglars broke in to my house, all up they got away with about 30K SGD worth of kit, however as it was insured it wasn't a financial problem but replacing some of it sure has been a sourcing nightmare.

The most important thing when shooting alone is to be very aware of your enivronment. I doubt if you'd have problems in SG, but in Australia and the rest of the world thieves find cameras an irresistable target. I've not had any gear stolen in the field, have dropped stuff over a cliff, had a camera run over and a few other things have happened but I've yet to have gear stolen on location, though a couple of folks have tried and went to hospital for their troubles

Other than that the best advice I can give is to plan your shoots carefully, keep a low profile and don't give lip to strangers. :devil:

 

[suhaimig]

Thanks for your info, very much appreciate it.

Cheers.

 

[SzennyBoy]

Originally posted by suhaimig
... I decided not to get the 17-35mm lens. Especially, when the lens require thin type filter. On my 20mm lens, I already invested B+W polariser which caused me a boom and I want to spent no more on filter.

Just thought I'd point out that both the 17-35mm and 18-35mm lenses use the 77mm thread filters. It is true that the 17-35mm is very ex but if you have a requirement for fast apertures or quite focusing then you won't find anything better than this. I've had mine for over a year now and it is really as good as everyone claims it to be... even better!

 

[NeedHELP]

I have the Sigma EX 17-35mm F2.8-4 and it's pretty good ... at least IMO

 

[rayman]

Hi guys,

A little OT here but how abt the 20-35/2.8? Been eyeing it for quite some time but am still garnering the resources to get it.

Heard from a friend that the elements of the 20-35 are of better quality than the 17-35. How true is this? Of course, the 20-35 does not come with AFS (technology not available then?) but does this cripple the lens a lot when compared to its cousin, the 17-35?

Last qn sounds dumb but can you still get the 20-35 new in stores or is it only available in the 2nd hand market?

Thanx

 

[binbeto]

Originally posted by rayman
Hi guys,

A little OT here but how abt the 20-35/2.8? Been eyeing it for quite some time but am still garnering the resources to get it.

Heard from a friend that the elements of the 20-35 are of better quality than the 17-35. How true is this? Of course, the 20-35 does not come with AFS (technology not available then?) but does this cripple the lens a lot when compared to its cousin, the 17-35?

Last qn sounds dumb but can you still get the 20-35 new in stores or is it only available in the 2nd hand market?

Thanx

I belive it's only available in the 2nd hand market as it discontinue for quite a while.

It will cost you abt 1200-1500, depending on condiiton.

The only -ve I can think of is the min focus distance. It is 0.5m which is one of the furthest in the lot of WA lens.

 

[ckiang]

Originally posted by rayman
Hi guys,

A little OT here but how abt the 20-35/2.8? Been eyeing it for quite some time but am still garnering the resources to get it.

Heard from a friend that the elements of the 20-35 are of better quality than the 17-35. How true is this? Of course, the 20-35 does not come with AFS (technology not available then?) but does this cripple the lens a lot when compared to its cousin, the 17-35?

Last qn sounds dumb but can you still get the 20-35 new in stores or is it only available in the 2nd hand market?

Thanx

I am also told the 20-35/2.8 is optically superior. I last saw a beat-up one at Prime for $1050. The more common price is $1200-1500 as binbeto mentioned. And yes, the minimum focussing distance is rather "far". AF speed shouldn't be an issue with wide angle lenses.

I missed the opp to get one for < $1k coz seller did not mention selling price, I tot he'll be asking > $1k (market rate) and did not response, and later when he sold it eventually, and I asked him how much did it go for, it's < $1k. ;p

Regards
CK

 

[binbeto]

Originally posted by ckiang


I am also told the 20-35/2.8 is optically superior. I last saw a beat-up one at Prime for $1050. The more common price is $1200-1500 as binbeto mentioned. And yes, the minimum focussing distance is rather "far". AF speed shouldn't be an issue with wide angle lenses.

I missed the opp to get one for < $1k coz seller did not mention selling price, I tot he'll be asking > $1k (market rate) and did not response, and later when he sold it eventually, and I asked him how much did it go for, it's < $1k. ;p

Regards
CK

I understand ur agony.. so which WA are u using now?

 

[tsdh]

Originally posted by ckiang
I am also told the 20-35/2.8 is optically superior. I last saw a beat-up one at Prime for $1050. The more common price is $1200-1500 as binbeto mentioned.
Regards
CK

That lens was over-rated.
It is not as superior as most reviewers talk about.
But it fill in the gap of price range between the consumer grade and hi-end ultra-wide zoom Nikkor, more "affordable" for serious amateurs and pros. Good to buy.

 

[binbeto]

Originally posted by tsdh

That lens was over-rated.
It is not as superior as most reviewers talk about.
But it fill in the gap of price range between the consumer grade and hi-end ultra-wide zoom Nikkor, more "affordable" for serious amateurs and pros. Good to buy.

i belive that is the hi end WA woom before teh 17-35mm came out. No?

 

[tsdh]

Originally posted by binbeto
i belive that is the hi end WA woom before teh 17-35mm came out. No?

I don't know about that, must ask to Ian
So far I know that there're only three WA zooms from Nikon:
17-35/2.8
20-35/2.8
18-35/3.5-4.5
(any other else I miss out?)

the 20-35/2.8 is hard to find new (probably discountinued?), its 2nd hand price is around $12xx while 17-35/2.8 2nd hand is around $2k, making the 20-35/2.8 a good to buy. Performance wise, it is just one notch lower than the 17-35, rarely noticeable for average usage at 12" x 8" enlargement.
While the 18-35 is lower in cost, but less performing ( at wide-open, softness in corners is easily noticeable at 12" x 8". probably better suit for DSLR users with FLM who don't need the corners).

 

[rayman]

I saw a 20-35/2.8 sitting pretty in the TCW storefront display going for $1485.

Anyone going to rush to TCW tomw??

 

[binbeto]

Originally posted by rayman
I saw a 20-35/2.8 sitting pretty in the TCW storefront display going for $1485.

Anyone going to rush to TCW tomw??

There is no need to rush... It had been sitting there for a long time already...

:devil:

 

[tsdh]

Originally posted by rayman
I saw a 20-35/2.8 sitting pretty in the TCW storefront display going for $1485.
Anyone going to rush to TCW tomw??

For $1485, no need to rush.
But if it is $10xx good condition, then I will rush.

 

[e_liau]

Originally posted by suhaimig
Thanks Ian,

After I read your message, I decided not to get the 17-35mm lens. Especially, when the lens require thin type filter. On my 20mm lens, I already invested B+W polariser which caused me a boom and I want to spent no more on filter.

Anyway, you said one of the lens has been stolen. Can you share little bit with me or may be you can share little bit of your experience while going out alone with an expensive camera.

Thanks.

Are you serious? What's the cost of a ultra thin filter as compared to a Nikkor 17-35mm? If buying the B+W ploy'ser already cost you a bomb, I can't imagine how you will react to the cost of a 17-35?! Come on, man! You gotta be kidding..

 

[ckiang]

Originally posted by tsdh

I don't know about that, must ask to Ian
So far I know that there're only three WA zooms from Nikon:
17-35/2.8
20-35/2.8
18-35/3.5-4.5
(any other else I miss out?)

the 20-35/2.8 is hard to find new (probably discountinued?), its 2nd hand price is around $12xx while 17-35/2.8 2nd hand is around $2k, making the 20-35/2.8 a good to buy. Performance wise, it is just one notch lower than the 17-35, rarely noticeable for average usage at 12" x 8" enlargement.
While the 18-35 is lower in cost, but less performing ( at wide-open, softness in corners is easily noticeable at 12" x 8". probably better suit for DSLR users with FLM who don't need the corners).

Actually, many said the optical performance of the 20-35/2.8 is superior to that of the 17-35, but mininum focussing distance of the 20-35 is not that close.

Regards
CK