about | support
home
 


  Reviews by: Dan Ryan  

View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Dan Ryan to your Buddy List
Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S

1960NAS_180
Review Date: Sep 26, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: sharp as a tack - provided you use a sharpening tool or (maybe, I have not tried this) bang up the sharpening in the D200 the focal length range does everything you could want - even portraits - it is, after all, about 52mm on digital at the long end and the resolution is such that you can crop the image for a greater telephoto effect
Cons:
it's big - but not as big and heavy as some reviews had lead me to believe

Nikonshooter1
I can sympathise. My 17-35 arrived last week. On the same day that I read your post. So I anxiously tried it out. I used it on a new D200. Was I disappointed! Not quite as bad as the image you linked but a definite lack of clarity and in some cases the impression of a thin veil over the image.

I tried it on many things. Books in shelves. Interiors of cars. Engines of cars. Portraits. Finally I was so disillusioned I contacted the supplier who (to their credit) agreed to immediately send me another sample from their stock.

But just about then I noticed something. When I opened those pics in Preview (I am on a Mac) there was a tools tag in the menu bar. Clicking on it I saw 'Image Correction'. When that came up there was the usual box on screen with Exposure, Contrast, Brightness etc. All of these sliders were set to the mid-point. However one of them, Sharpening, was set to the far left - no sharpening. So I slid it to the centre point. Wow. The pic snapped into sharp focus and contrast. Then I slid it a bit more to the right. The effect got sharper, and a bit more contrast. The 'veil' over the image disappeared! These images are now everything I could have hoped for from this legendary lens.

Here are links to the before and after sharpening effects. It may be that the differences will not show up on screen. I can assure you that the difference on my screen is dramatic.
unsharpened
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m301/kalkadan/Nikkor%20lenses/DGR_0112.jpg
the same, sharpened
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m301/kalkadan/Nikkor%20lenses/DGR_0112Sharpened.jpg
engine, unsharpened
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m301/kalkadan/Nikkor%20lenses/DGR_0171.jpg
engine, sharpened
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m301/kalkadan/Nikkor%20lenses/DGR_0171sharpened.jpg

I then found the same thing with my old nikkors on the D200; the 35mm f2 - a wonderfully sharp lens I have had for years - required 'sharpening' in digital, so did the 70-210 zoom which years of using had proved it to be as sharp as Ken Rockwell claims.

I then enquired on a forum I go to occasionally. I asked if this need to 'sharpen' was normal. The responses included:
>>I've heard the D200 is "soft" by default, compared to other DSLR's. I believe I read that at dpreview, for what that's worth.
So, ever since the, I've bumped up the sharpness on mine and it seems pretty good. Try it and let me know what you think.<<
>>Yes, absolutely normal and necessary. Somebody can chime in with the technical answer, but some mumbo jumbo about the way the sensor works or something. Anyway, I have just been keeping the sharpening on the middle setting in the camera settings. Then I sharpen to taste in Photoshop before printing or posting on the web. Also, any time you resize an image (downsizing to post smaller pix on the web for example) you will want to add just a kiss of sharpening.
Also worth noting is that p&s digicams are designed to just let you shoot and print, so will probably actually look sharper right out of the camera than pix from a DSLR in many cases, so don't let that make you lose faith in your lenses.<<

I hope this helps. I felt like slashing my wrists when it happened to me. Now I just look at these lovely sharp images (corner to corner even at 2.8) and depthe of field at 17mm to die for - and drool!

all the best


 
Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S

1960NAS_180
Review Date: Sep 26, 2006 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated

 
Pros:
Cons:

Nikonshooter1
I can sympathise. My 17-35 arrived last week. On the same day that I read your post. So I anxiously tried it out. I used it on a new D200. Was I disappointed! Not quite as bad as the image you linked but a definite lack of clarity and in some cases the impression of a thin veil over the image.

I tried it on many things. Books in shelves. Interiors of cars. Engines of cars. Portraits. Finally I was so disillusioned I contacted the supplier who (to their credit) agreed to immediately send me another sample from their stock.

But just about then I noticed something. When I opened those pics in Preview (I am on a Mac) there was a tools tag in the menu bar. Clicking on it I saw 'Image Correction'. When that came up there was the usual box on screen with Exposure, Contrast, Brightness etc. All of these sliders were set to the mid-point. However one of them, Sharpening, was set to the far left - no sharpening. So I slid it to the centre point. Wow. The pic snapped into sharp focus and contrast. Then I slid it a bit more to the right. The effect got sharper, and a bit more contrast. The 'veil' over the image disappeared! These images are now everything I could have hoped for from this legendary lens.

Here are links to the before and after sharpening effects. It may be that the differences will not show up on screen. I can assure you that the difference on my screen is dramatic.
unsharpened
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m301/kalkadan/Nikkor%20lenses/DGR_0112.jpg
the same, sharpened
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m301/kalkadan/Nikkor%20lenses/DGR_0112Sharpened.jpg
engine, unsharpened
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m301/kalkadan/Nikkor%20lenses/DGR_0171.jpg
engine, sharpened
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m301/kalkadan/Nikkor%20lenses/DGR_0171sharpened.jpg

I then found the same thing with my old nikkors on the D200; the 35mm f2 - a wonderfully sharp lens I have had for years - required 'sharpening' in digital, so did the 70-210 zoom which years of using had proved it to be as sharp as Ken Rockwell claims.

I then enquired on a forum I go to occasionally. I asked if this need to 'sharpen' was normal. The responses included:
>>I've heard the D200 is "soft" by default, compared to other DSLR's. I believe I read that at dpreview, for what that's worth.
So, ever since the, I've bumped up the sharpness on mine and it seems pretty good. Try it and let me know what you think.<<
>>Yes, absolutely normal and necessary. Somebody can chime in with the technical answer, but some mumbo jumbo about the way the sensor works or something. Anyway, I have just been keeping the sharpening on the middle setting in the camera settings. Then I sharpen to taste in Photoshop before printing or posting on the web. Also, any time you resize an image (downsizing to post smaller pix on the web for example) you will want to add just a kiss of sharpening.
Also worth noting is that p&s digicams are designed to just let you shoot and print, so will probably actually look sharper right out of the camera than pix from a DSLR in many cases, so don't let that make you lose faith in your lenses.<<

I hope this helps. I felt like slashing my wrists when it happened to me. Now I just look at these lovely sharp images (corner to corner even at 2.8) and depthe of field at 17mm to die for - and drool!

all the best