 |
|
|
SoundHound
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Jan 14, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 7820
|
|
Review Date: Feb 2, 2017
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $600.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Superb utility and build! The way Nikon once built them.
|
|
Cons:
|
Can't shoot landscapes at F2.8 with sharp edges.
|
|
|
I have had the holy trinity for some time (14-24/24-70/70-200). Seldom used the 14-24 because of its weight and protruding objective. I felt under equipped with two camera bodies for fast moving jobs because the 14-24 isn't a lens you want to swap out in a hurry.
That's all over now. I use the 17-35 on one FF body and the 70-200 on the other. The 40-65mm "hole" in the coverage is not missed and I get the vital wider end (I never use my 50mm prime the FL leaves me bored). So much smaller/lighter than my 24-70.
At first my 17-35 looked soft because my copy needed some Micro AF adjustment. Maybe that's why D200 users reported softness? However, it's really a FF lens. The build quality takes me back to my AIS lenses-it actually has an engraved paint filled F stop ring.
You can get good used deals-I did (mint like with a filter for $700). Don't buy a squeaker (AF noise) because repair of the AF module is expensive. If Nikon ever makes a replacement you can be sure they will charge lots more than the $2K they do now for this 17-35.
|
|
 Feb 2, 2017
|
|
XDCAMan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 7, 2013
Location: United States
Posts: 290
|
|
Review Date: Feb 28, 2016
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $750.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent build quality as well as quick effective AF. Excellent weight & balance makes it a pleasure to hold & shoot with.
|
|
Cons:
|
Many copies have a light squeak during AF but mine has not shown this.
|
|
|
A great wide angle Nikkor that can be picked up a much lower price because of the age of the lens but don't let that fool you as this 17-35mm is incredibly built and offers excellent sharpness & contrast. Ultimate sharpness is at f5.6 to f8 but still impressive shot wide open. New price at B&H is still $1951.95 but can be found on the used market in excellent condition for anywhere between $700.00-$1050.00 I love the feel and weigh of the lens. Much better balance than the 14-24mm which I sold to get this one.
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2016
|
|
bocaminus
Offline
Registered: Apr 19, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 784
|
|
Review Date: Jun 4, 2014
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,000.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, great color rendering and amazing build quality
|
|
Cons:
|
Slower AF compared to 16-35 f/4
|
|
|
I got this lens almost 3 months ago and so far I'm pretty impressed with performance and overall usability. The build quality is second to none. The metal body is durable although not weather sealed. It definitely feels more robust than some newer Nikon zooms (24-70, 70-200). As per picture quality, 17-35 is a winner. Distortion at 17mm is well controlled and CA is not really a problem. The center sharpness at f/2.8 is quite good while edges are naturally a notch softer. Everything comes together around f/4, where the lens shows sharp results across the entire frame. For me, the sweet spot lies in between f/5.6 and f/8. At these apertures, Nikon 17-35 shines in every single aspect. The color rendering and contrast is a bit better than Nikon 16-35 f/4. Overall, this is a really good buy. I spent around $1000 USD (second hand copy) I don't regret it at all ...
|
|
|
Jun 4, 2014
|
|
photospots
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 29, 2012
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Nov 11, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent sharpness
|
|
Cons:
|
Might need to stop down to get better sharpness in borders
|
|
A great sharp lens
Has been a legend for years
Might need to stop down to get corner sharpness
f/5.6 is the best par of this lens
Read more what others are saying about this lens: http://www.photospots.dk/p/nikon-zoom.html
|
|
|
Nov 11, 2012
|
|
mohawk51
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 19, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 8
|
|
Review Date: Oct 19, 2012
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $1,199.00
|
|
Pros:
|
It'a well built Nikkor! End of story...
|
|
Cons:
|
None that I've seen.
|
|
|
I just got back from a 4,000 mile road trip out west. I took this lens, a 50 and a 80-200. This lens saw about 90% of the work on my FM2N & F3T. On film, this lens is spectacular! The colors, the contrast, the flare & ghosting resistance. The slides came out very, very well. No complaints here.
|
|
|
Oct 19, 2012
|
|
mohawk51
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 19, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 8
|
|
Review Date: Feb 4, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
|
In my opinion this lens is a better film lens than a digital lens. On film this lens is a "keeper". No complaint about it whatsoever.
|
|
|
Feb 4, 2010
|
|
mach250
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Mar 22, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 1257
|
|
Review Date: May 31, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,100.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great lens for its focal length. Just needs to be stopped down a bit to shine perfectly.
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft corners...but its not as bad as people say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 31, 2009
|
|
muskokaphotog
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 3, 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 3, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,700.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
great zoom range, build quality, fast
|
|
Cons:
|
soft corners, soft corners, distortion
|
|
|
As a Nikon user, when Canon was producing full frame digital cameras and Nikon was spouting the advantages the APS sensor as a reason for not producing a full frame camera, you knew the full frame was going to come. SO, I didn't want to buy a lens that would be limited to the DX format. I had had a 20 - 35 and it was very solid, I wanted the wider angle and hoped for greater sharpness. Wider angle yes, sharpness depends. At wider aps, this lens is very soft in the corners. So much so I sent it in for a service check. When stopped down to 11, on a tripod, it is very sharp. Some corner fall off, definite barrel distortion at times. Most ocean horizons don't have the shape of a basketball! For clever lens owners, there are preset Photoshop corrections for the distortions. In the old days, you expected better. Compared to a 24mm prime, this lens sucks. In fact, I just bought a 24mm prime to replace this zoom. Saved about 4 lbs. and $1400. The zoom is only an advantage is you must shoot from awkward or varied positions. Otherwise, two primes is a much better choice.
|
|
|
Mar 3, 2009
|
|
Carl Feather
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 26, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 578
|
|
Review Date: Dec 17, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,000.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality, image quality, ideal range
|
|
Cons:
|
Not as sharp as the 14-24 but more useful.
|
|
|
I used this lens starting with a D1H back in 2001, then on to the D2H, D200. When I acquired a D300, I got a 14-24. It was a good range on the 1.5X sensor. Then came the D700. The 14-24 was just too limited in its range. The image quality, however, is stunning. I rarely shoot wider than 24mm, so I decided the 24-70 was a better choice for me than the 14-24, and I did the swap. I have access to a 17-35 at work for those few times I need something wider.
The 17-35 is not as sharp as the 14-24, but it is much more useful for weddings, where you need something that can go very wide for tight shots to just under normal for groups. The 14-24 can't do that. A little extra sharpening in PP brings the 17-35 up to par. Again, if I shot a lot of WA, I would have kept the 14-24 to have image quality on par with the 24-70, but since that covers me 90 percent of the time, this lens makes a good mate for the few wider shots I do.
Well built, the one I have is seven years old and has never had an issue in day-in, day-out use in a newspaper gear pool. Flare is well controled and I like the fact it accepts a filter, which the 14-24 does not do. Overall, I imagine this lens will become highly sought as it's now out of production and offers functionality advantages over the 14-24.
|
|
|
Dec 17, 2008
|
|
cellison
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 30, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 38
|
|
Review Date: Nov 14, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Extremely sharp, built like a tank.
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
I bought this lens used a few months ago and while pleased with the results when stopped down a few notches was less than impressed with it's performance wide open. I couldn't understand how the lens got the reputation it had so I decided rather than just accept it the way it was or sell it to send it to Nikon for calibration. The difference is incredible. It's like I have a new lens. Even wide open it's razor sharp with fantastic contrast.
For my shooting style this is the ideal lens and now that it's performing up to it's 'legendary' status I could not be happier.
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2006
|
|
Dan Ryan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 26, 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
|
|
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
|
|
|
Sep 26, 2006
|
|
Dan Ryan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 26, 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 26, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
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
|
|
|
Sep 26, 2006
|
|
NikonShooter1
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 19, 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 19, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 3
|
|
Pros:
|
Usable when stopped down to f11
|
|
Cons:
|
Dramatically poor performance on D200
|
|
Itīs unbelievable. Judging from the numerous raving reviews on the web about this lens I had no doubt ordering one and believed I wouldnt ever need anything else. I was shocked then about the performance after initial testing at various subjects with different apertures and focal lenghts: Dramatically poor!
This lens becomes usable not sooner than f5.6, its really bad below and a joke at 2.8. Probably it was a great lens back in the film days (I dont know, I dont shoot film) but on the D200 it really sucks.
Bjorn Rorslett by the way, one of the famous reviewers who rates this lens 5/5 and a "legend", said there was nothing wrong with my samples and this is what the lens is supposed to perform. Well, have a look for yourself before getting fooled by reviews and buying one. Heres a 100% crop at f2.8.
http://img391.imageshack.us/img391/8462/000f282qj.jpg
What a disappointment... The 18-55 DX costs 10% and performs even better wide open. Considering the rip-off price, run away from this lens!
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2006
|
|
rnyc1
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 22, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1028
|
|
Review Date: Jun 17, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,000.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, excellent build.
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
Quited simply one of the best wide zooms ever made. Outstanding for landscape photography.
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2006
|
|
Belladorna
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 29, 2006
Location: Andorra
Posts: 15
|
|
Review Date: May 29, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 1
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent build quality
|
|
Cons:
|
Not suitable for digital
|
|
|
I don't understand why people are so lyrical about; it's just NOT sharp on a dSLR.
Probably the sharpest zoom on a SLR, but if you only shoot digital: do not buy this.
The focus is right-on tho, but 9 out of 10 times I will end up with an unsharp image; and I'll have to do a lot of post-processing to come up with something useful. Tested it with two copies on two bodies.
Also take a look at userpictures @ Pbase.com if you think i'm wrong. Almost every image taken with a dSLR is relatively unsharp.
Don't be mistaken by his legendary status, save yourself a lot of trouble and get the 17-55/2.8; which gives much better results.
Ciao!
|
|
|
May 29, 2006
|
|
myweh
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 27, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1044
|
|
Review Date: Feb 28, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $950.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
great lens. very sharp and beautiful colors. auto focus is very quick. built like a tank. no CA
|
|
Cons:
|
like its been said, you get what you pay for. this is a solid lens.
|
|
|
just had my first chance to do a good shoot with this lens. i had been photographing some prototype models at work that didn't let me get a wide range of subjects or colors... but i did a city shoot and was very impressed with the results. color and contrast in this lens are great.
if you are debating this lens b/c of the price, bite the bullet and buy it. it is worth every penny. i had a hard time justifying the price, but it really is worth it. you won't regret it.
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
39
|
169700
|
Feb 2, 2017
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
90% of reviewers
|
$1,248.17
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.79
|
7.92
|
9.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
