Lens: Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 AFS ED
Read More
D70, 17-35 AFS @ 17mm; unrecorded exposure, tripod I don't really need to review the 17-35 f/2.8 because it has already been well documented that this lens is a pinnacle of engineering and offers unbeatable sharpness. I will however take this time to express some opinions: On a 35mm film SLR this lens is fantastic. It is an absolute necessity for anyone who shoots landscapes or architecture, and is also widely used as a photojournalism / event photography lens. However on a Nikon DSLR, the field of view is cropped to 25.5-52.5mm. Reminiscent of the rare (and highly acclaimed) 25-50 f/4 manual focus lens, it is still a fine piece of equipment offering a handy range to outdoor photographers. But for DSLR's Nikon makes the 17-55 f/2.8 DX, which adds 20mm to the tele end, which adds 30mm to the FOV, making it a 25.5-82.5mm zoom. Being smaller, lighter, and less expensive than the 17-35 f/2.8, it is a no-bainer to pass on the "full frame" 17-35 and go with the DX lens. Besides, if you need a wide angle zoom there is the 12-24 DX which almost exactly matches the FOV of the 17-35. That is, IF you are among those who wish to embrace DX. If not, if you are hoping Nikon will offer an FF DSLR body someday, then things get really complicated. Maybe you already own a 17-35 and don't want to sell it because you want to use it on an FF DSLR someday. Maybe you don't yet own any of these lenses, but are hoping that FF is introduced. In either case, you have to weigh your choices and answer some questions: How long will it take for Nikon to introduce FF? Do I want to wait that long for FF and not spend any more money on lenses, even if it means missing out on a temporary solution to my problem? Should I just buy the "right" DX lens now and re-sell the lenses when FF comes? Should I just "give in" and stick with DX even when FF comes? (no matter how "affordable" FF gets, DX will always be less expensive. And telephoto lenses will always have that handy crop factor!) Should I sell my FF lenses to fund these DX lenses? Luckily, I am in the least stressfull category to be in. First, I don't own any super-expensive FF lenses such as the 17-35 or the 28-70 to worry about selling or keeping. Second, I'm happy with DX and I plan on fully embracing it. Or at least, I plan on maintaining a DX system even if I eventually "need" what FF offers. So all I have to worry about is saving up for DX lenses!
D70, 17-35 AFS @ 17mm; f/9.0 & 1/250 sec, handheld. As far as the actual quality of the 17-35 is concerned, I feel similarly about it as I do about most other professional lenses, especially the legendary "beast" 28-70 AFS: The 17-35 is the best wide angle zoom that money can buy. You can't ask for more image quality, period. You could however ask for a cheaper price and a lighter weight, but that just can't happen to the extent I'd like, therefore this lens isn't really for me. I rented this lens from time to time to shoot events until I found a place to rent the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 DX, which is much better suited for event photography on a DX format DSLR. Besides as I mentioned before, the 12-24 is the "wide angle zoom" for me. (Which is smaller, lighter, and less expensive by a few hundred dollars than the 17-35 I might add.) The image quality of the 12-24 is absolutely superb; I will give my complete opinion on it as soon as time allows. For now, I have opted to shoot with the $220 Tokina 17mm f/3.5 if I need the 17mm focal length, the review of which you can read HERE. However one thing is for certain: on film SLR's, or if/when Nikon FF digital comes, or for those who have the Kodak DSLR or adapt this lens to a Canon EOS mount for the 1 series cameras, this lens is the king of super-wide zooms.