Just curious how the 20-35 2.8 performs with a D700 compared to the 17-35mm.
Any experiences? The price difference is substantial and 20 is wide enough for me on a full frame so I'm just wondering what people have found in actual use.
At the time it was released there was some complaining about it. It was Nikon's first attempt at this sort of lens and there were some issues. The reason the 17-35mm has higher price is it's considered to be a significant improvement. Main problems with it are lots of CA, and it's not as sharp as later lenses. Don't go cheap on lenses. Those you keep. Cameras are disposable. Personally, I would not spend $2,000 on a D700 and then put this lens on it.
I have one Nikon 20-35/2.8 and like very much the results with D700. The performance is better on FF than on D50 I also own. One of the reasons is the fine focus ajustment (-20) for my copy. Distorsion is low for a WA zoom, wide open sharpness is more than aceptable, very strong construction. The only drawback is lens is prone to flare, always keep the hood and pay attention on the light sources. I think it is a very good lens for the price.
Two23 wrote:
At the time it was released there was some complaining about it. It was Nikon's first attempt at this sort of lens and there were some issues. The reason the 17-35mm has higher price is it's considered to be a significant improvement. Main problems with it are lots of CA, and it's not as sharp as later lenses. Don't go cheap on lenses. Those you keep. Cameras are disposable. Personally, I would not spend $2,000 on a D700 and then put this lens on it.
Kent in SD
i found my receipt for my 20-35/2.8 and the price differential was little when each was purchased. there was little to no CA in this lens it was a favorite street shooting lens of many a PJ. and yes of course the 17-35/2.8 is an improvemet but that is a budgetary issue overall. i have used it on the D3 and the D700.
For me the single most important budget consideration is the best lens. Everything else is secondary. Since ultrawides tend to be my most used lens, I'm going for the 14-24mm f2.8 and won't settle for less, myself. Lenses I keep a long time.
I've recently ran through the wide-angle zoom challenge and settled for the Nikon 17-35, but it really depends what your priorities are - just like any other choice of gear.
The Tamron 17-35 was a good performer - good image quality, light and easy to carry, and relatively cheap - in fact, a relative bargain at under $300 used.
Next was the 20-35. Also, a good performer. Constant f2.8 is nice. AF speed is good, but not great. Also, small and portable. At 20mm, distortion is less pronounced than any of the 17s.
Then came the Nikon 14-24. Awesome performer. 14 is extremely wide (and fun) to shoot. Noticeably sharper in the corners. It's heavy and a little concerning to carry around with that big front element out there. Also, very expensive. I also found the range too short at only 24, which forced me to bring my 24-70 as well. The d700, plus those 2 pro zooms was just to heavy for my tastes - despite the awesome qualities.
Lastly, the Nikon 17-35. Fast focusing with excellent sharpness and contrast. Whether it's worth the extra $800 dollars or so then the Tammy, or $500 dollars more then the Nikon 20-35 is up to you.
I use this range to primarily shoot candids of my kids and relatively little architecture or landscape, so faster focus and faster aperture are more important to me. If shot more landscapes, the 14-24 would still be in bag, as it's tough to beat for sheer image quality.
Oh, one more thought, I also had a Sigma 12-24 on my 5D and that also, was really run to shoot. Crazy wide with excellent image quality, however it's a relatively slow lens in terms of aperture. Great for landscapes at 1/2 the price of the 14-24, but also inferior in terms of image quality.
