about | support
home
 

Search Used

Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
37 141916 Jun 4, 2014
Recommended By Average Price
89% of reviewers $1,302.76
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
9.77
7.77
9.1
1960NAS_180

Specifications:
ED glass element reduces chromatic aberrations providing superior optical performance - even at maximum aperture
The standards lens for PJ and travel photography. Perfect for use with D1 digital SLR.
M/A switch for fast transitions from AF to manual focus
No power drain when manually focusing.

Filter Size 77mm
f/Stop Range 2.8-22
Minimum Focus Distance 11"
Magnification 1:4.6
Zoom/Focus Control Two-touch
Angle of View 104 to 62 Degrees
Groups/Elements 10/13
Tripod Collar No
Length 4.2"
Maximum Diameter 3.3"
Weight 1.66 lb


 


Page:  1 · 2 · 3  next
          
Julius
Offline
Buy and Sell: On



Registered: Jan 26, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 941
Review Date: Dec 10, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,100.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Superbly built, excellent color and contrast, outstanding resolution.
Cons:
None

Simply the best wide angle zoom I have tried or used on any camera and I tried many of them including the Canon 16-35L, 17-35L, 17-40L, Nikkor 18-35 ED, 17-55 ED DX. This lens beats them all hands down even including the fixed focal length lenses in this range.

Dec 10, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Julius to your Buddy List  
PBYD
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
Review Date: Nov 15, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Superb in all aspects. Minimal flare & ghosting. Superb sharpness. Minimal light fall off.
Cons:
Price.. but considering the cons, I wouldn't expect anything different. Weight.. it's heavy but built like a tank, with excellent optics

This lens is EXCELLENT in all aspects:-

1) For a wide angle, there was minimal distortion. This was verified.

2) Light falloff was minimal as well, even wide open at f/2.8

3) f/5.6-13.. the lens is so sharp, its unbelievable.

4) The autofocus speed was very fast with minimal hunting, thanks to AF-S (i.e. Silent Wave Motor).

5) Perfect for 1.5x crop (all current Nikon dSLRs)

I have not tested this on 35mm film (or FF), but will do so soon, and let you know the results. My guess is most people are interested in digital SLRs now, so that finding may be redundant, as Nikon's are 1.5x FOV crops, at this point.

I would recommend this lens hands down.. works out to an effective focal length of 25-52mm.

Enjoy!


Nov 15, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add PBYD to your Buddy List  
NigelR
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Nov 10, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
Review Date: Nov 13, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Build Quality
Cons:
Maybe the price

I had always said no to zoom lenses and concentrated on primes. However, I dived in and can say I have been blown away by it. When used on a slr/n it is every bit as good as my previous medium format results. The Lee filters work fine even at 17mm. It is very good and although a bit pricey, its a must for proper WA with a slr/n

Nov 13, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add NigelR to your Buddy List  
hubsand
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Dec 17, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2076
Review Date: Oct 29, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Exemplary sharpness, superb spatial separation, colour, CA and geometry control. My sample demonstrably better than the Leica 21-35 between 21-24mm, and comparable to the CZ28
Cons:
Er . . .

Having tested just about every wide angle lens on earth mountable on the 1Ds II, and having been a Nikon user in the film era, it is quite ironic that this lens should have become my WA mainstay: better than the Canon 17-40L and 16-35L, and sharper than the Olympus 21mm, this lens may just be the next best thing to a CZ21mm at this focal length. Also knocks the Sigma 15-30mm into a cocked hat. Beautiful colour rendering, lovely Zeiss-like contrast and beautifully made, it's hard to ask more of a WA zoom than this delivers. Comparative results can be seen here: http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/21mm_7.html . . . highly impressed.

Oct 29, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add hubsand to your Buddy List  
TopherMartini
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: May 28, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 11
Review Date: Oct 15, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,500.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Amazing sharpness and AF performance, solid build quality, low-light performance, Perfect mate for any D2X!
Cons:
Price... but it's worth every penny.

After shooting with the 18-35mm lens for almost a year I often wondered if the 17-35mm lens would be that much different and justify the price? Well, it is and it does!

The AF performance is awesome, even in low light, and having a 2.8 aperature allows you much more versatility than the 18-35mm allowed. Being able to switch to manual focus from a switch on the lens offers a lot of unique opportunity as well when you might not be getting the right focus with Focus Lock or need to fine tune a little more.

The main negative aspect that everyone seems to bring up (myself included) is the price. Even though the production value of this lens is worth well more than its MSRP, it's still an expensive lens and purchasing it needs to be thought through carefully.

This lens is mainly used on a D2X and the performance is just awesome. With a DX format sensor this lens allows you to gather more wide angle range yet achieve stunning sharpness.

In talking with people who own and use this lens, I have yet to find someone that regrets purchasing it!


Oct 15, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add TopherMartini to your Buddy List  
LarryFRCGP
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Oct 4, 2005
Location: China
Posts: 5
Review Date: Oct 5, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Unbelievable sharpness. No(I stress no) chromatic abbrevation. Solid professional feel. Tank like. Dropped from 3.5 feet on wooden floor once and still works without a hiccup.(Please don't use it as a standard test--LOL). No ghost/flare. Simply. the best AF-S Zoom Nikkor IMHO.
Cons:
Can't find any

Bought this lens with S2Pro as I first started out with digital photography, after 20 yrs of nikon experience(moving from FG20 to FE2, F3, F5). At first I didn't notice the prowess of this lens until I show the 8x12" prints to my friends after my Paris trip and he commented if the prints were from 6x6 negatives!

My sample showed better sharpness @17mm than 35mm. At f/5.6 it attained its best. Flare/ghosting is never experienced. As for its sturdy built, I can testify that with the fact it remained in perfect working order after falling 3.5ft from my desk to a maple wooden floor!(It has the lens hood on, guess it took the force of the plunge). The floor had a little dent on the contrary. <<P.S. Thsi test is not recommeneded for your sample if you own one!>>

In my 20 years with Nikon MF lens, I will never believe any zoom lens can be better than a prime until I experienced this 17-35mmf/2.8 AF-S. It just re-washed my cerebrum so to speak. Thank you Nikon.

Larry


Oct 5, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add LarryFRCGP to your Buddy List  
summergoose
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 18, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Review Date: Oct 2, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,395.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Beautiful Lens, Handles Great, Sharp Images, Fast Focusing - this is my favorite lens.
Cons:
A little expensive, but you get what you pay for!

This has to be Nikon's best wide angle lens. The 2.8 is sharp throughtout the focal lengths. This lens is a joy to work with it fit my hands perfectly. I'm using it with both a D70 and a F100.

This lens is as great in shooting weddings as it is landscapes. This is a must have lens!


Oct 2, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add summergoose to your Buddy List  
jb_va2001
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: May 12, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Review Date: May 18, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Razor sharp, fast, suitable for film or digital. Rugged, pro-grade all the way.
Cons:
Heavy, large & expensive.

This zoom seldom leaves my camera, it's my favorite lens. I look for places to use it. The 17-35 is the sharpest zoom I own. Little distortion, fast, a pleasure to shoot. Rock solid performer. Use it with film or digital.

May 18, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add jb_va2001 to your Buddy List  
carlogiunta
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Feb 27, 2005
Location: Italy
Posts: 10
Review Date: May 17, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Very solid, sharp and bright, the best.
Cons:

I use this lens for architecture and industrial photos, with kodak SLR/N, and i don't regret my toyo field with superangulon 65 mm., after used sigma 17-35 this is a flashlight in the darkness.
Carlo.


May 17, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add carlogiunta to your Buddy List  
Elysium
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Oct 10, 2003
Location: N/A
Posts: 54
Review Date: Nov 19, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,400.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Solid build, wide angle, F2.8.
Cons:
Expensive But well worth the cost.

I do most if not all my photojournalism with this lens minus all the sports. At its widest it tends to fish eye slightl so it gives a nice change for some photos. The lens is built like a tank and will seem to last a lifetime. If you can afford just one lens the 17-35 is the one you need.

Nov 19, 2004
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Elysium to your Buddy List  
Chuck Tintera
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Feb 7, 2004
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
Review Date: Feb 10, 2004 Recommend? no | Price paid: $1,490.00 | Rating: 4 

 
Pros:
Cons:
We could not get a sharp image out of ours with either film (F3, FE2) or digital (D100). After 4 attempts to fix the problem(s) Nikon replaced it.



Feb 10, 2004
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Chuck Tintera to your Buddy List  
docverda
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Sep 3, 2003
Location: Italy
Posts: 0
Review Date: Jan 24, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Sharp, silent, perfect at any f. The best zoom I ever used.
Cons:
A bit heavy on my Fuji S2Pro



Jan 24, 2004
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add docverda to your Buddy List  
Jacques G
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Aug 19, 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 40
Review Date: Jul 24, 2003 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,625.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Sharp, distortion free, constant 2.8, solid, possibility to use 77mm filters. I have tried the Tamron 20-40 (very good, but flares easily) and the Sigma 15-30 (very disappointing, possibly due to a bad sample), and decided to go for the Nikon.
Cons:
Heavy, power drain because of AFS.

A marvel.
Costs less than all the fixed lenses that it replaces.
I will buy other digital bodies after the S2, but this lens will remain.
Glad I chose a lens that covers 24 X 36, if I ever get a full frame body, be it Nikon, Fuji or Kodak.


Jul 24, 2003
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Jacques G to your Buddy List  
Brendan Getchel
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jun 14, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 1990
Review Date: Jul 3, 2003 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,100.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: The sharpest 35mm zoom lens -- period. AF is a bullet. The perfect lens for a 1.5x FOV dSLR. Superb contrast with excellent defocus rendition. Minimal-to-no barrel and pincushion at respective ends. Built like a tank. Practically impervious to flare.
Cons:
Pricey, but in this case you truly "get what you pay for." Hood is practically useless.

Having recently made the switch to Canon, there is only one Nikkor lens that I truly pine for -- the 17-35/2.8 AF-S. Canon, quite simply, has nothing that can remotely compete with it. Both their 16-35/2.8L and 17-40/4L, while respectable, just don't hold a candle to this Nikkor. If you shoot wide, this lens is not only recommended -- it's COMPULSORY! At f/5.6 and above it's as sharp as any prime in its range -- either Nikon or Canon -- if not sharper. It's fully usable wide-open, but does benefit some from closing down a stop or two. Color and contrast are immaculate and you can practically point this lens right into the sun with little concern for flare.

This lens is truly a marvel of Nikon engineering. I don't know why Canon can't duplicate it (yet), but none of their current offerings come close. On Nikon's current 1.5x FOV dSLRs it's probably the most useful zoom range for the average photographer -- transforming it into a ~25-52mm zoom.

Skimp on everything else to get this lens if you have to. It's that good.



Jul 3, 2003
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Brendan Getchel to your Buddy List  
Sisoje
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jan 25, 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 972
Review Date: Jun 30, 2003 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,200.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Great quality, good finish, soooo wide (on 35mm)
Cons:
(small) vighnetting @ 17mm with PL filter.

This lens replaced my old 20-35mm after I tried to fix it (at Nikon Canada) with no success. It just was not sharp...
Now, 17-35 is a gem!


Jun 30, 2003
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Sisoje to your Buddy List  
Timm
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Oct 4, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 4390
Review Date: Jun 15, 2003 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,600.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: It's all true!
Cons:
I've owned cheaper cars, and some have weighed less.

This is the finest piece of glass I've ever used. I've never regreted the investment. If you want/need ultra-to-mid wide angle, ultra-sharp, low-distortion glass for your Nikon-mount, this is it.

Composing in the ultra-wide range is a blast and a challenge. At f22, 17mm, and hyperfocal focus, objects from infinity to less than one inch are in focus! You can also shrink a mountain to a molehill (or pimple). Pay lots of attention to your composition (remember that 94% viewfinder) or you'll have your feet, shadow, and/or tripod legs in the image!

At 35mm, this lens produces images that are great for hand-stitched panos.

With a full-frame camera, use of a polarizer at FLs below about 20mm is not a good idea. I have no problem with vighnetting with a "thin" filter, but, due to this lens' huge field of view and the changing angle of polarization in natural light, you can get some horrible results. Point this lens at 90 deg. from the sun at 17mm with a polarizer, and you'll have a nice dark blob in the sky occupying the center third or so of the image. Color saturation and reflections are similarly affected. This isn't a problem with digital bodies with 1.5 magnification factors.

All observations are based on full-frame, 35mm shooting.


Timm


Jun 15, 2003
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Timm to your Buddy List  

   



Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
37 141916 Jun 4, 2014
Recommended By Average Price
89% of reviewers $1,302.76
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
9.77
7.77
9.1
1960NAS_180


Page:  1 · 2 · 3  next