So I'm looking for a fast wide zoom and I'm considering either the 17-35 or 15-55, but have also seen the 20-35.

Has anyone shot the 20-35 f/2.8? It's not that wide, not pro-built, but I figure for about half the price of the other 2 lenses, it's not that bad.

I'll be shooting it with either a D200 or D1X, when I get my new camera (a D50 for now).

I'm going towards the 17-55, but always up for suggestions.

20-35, any good votes on it?

Thanks,

~ nic

The 20-35 f/2.8 is a pretty good lens, though it is clearly not from the digital age.

it actually does have the same pro build as its contemporary pro lenses (i.e. 85mm f/1.4, 28mm f/1.4, 105 and 135 f/2 DC, 80-200 2.8 AF) .

One of the top reviewers of lenses has his concise opinion here. (http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_01.html#AF20-35DIF) Another highly respected reviewer gives us his thoughts at this site. (http://www.bythom.com/2035lens.htm)

I have had the 20-35mm and have the 17-35mm right now. Both are very sharp. I'd give the edge to the 17-35mm and the extra 3mm makes more of a difference with digital than you migth realize. If you really wanted "wide-angle" the 12-24mm might be a better fit for you. I haven't used that lens yet, though.

I had the lens for a few years and it wasn't my favorite, but have not used the 17-35 which I hear is much better. Comparing primes to zooms isn't usually fair, but the 20 AF-D is a much better lens at that focal length. It flares a lot compared to a lot of other Nikon lenses I've used including the 28-105 f3.5-4.5. I don't usually worry about CA too much, but I do have a film shot that even shows this...

It's built really well, but that auto-manual ring isn't one of their best designs. I've had that lens, the 85 f1.4 and the 80-200 f2.8 which all have it, and the 80-200 has a piece of g-tape to hold it in position. I guess it's pretty common for them to break off too, and that would require a "real" repair.

In spite of all that, I did use it quite a bit and only sold it because with the DSLR it wasn't getting used. It's a handy focal length for people shots like wedding receptions, but the 17-55 would be a better choice.

Now, I haven't used the 20-35, but i've used the 20/2.8D and owned the 17-35 and currently have the 17-55.

The 17-35 is better than the 20/2.8

The 17-35 and 17-55 basically complement each other nicely- whatever one doesn't do perfectly, the other makes up for it plenty.

The 17-35 is the ultimate landscape lens- period. Stopped down you won't find anything sharper, anywhere. Primes move over. Flare? Ghosting? What flare and ghosting? I've shot it (on film) with the sun well inside the frame and had none of either. Somewhat smaller zoom range, but it bears it well.

The 17-55 has more distortion, flares easier, and has a bit more CA at the edges, but then it's not entirely designed as a lens for a ton of pure landscapes. It is blisteringly sharp wide open, and you might want to watch out for your jugular at f/4 and higher. It has a larger zoom range, too. More of a people lens, IMHO, than the 17-35, though both are very good at many of the in-between things.