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

[blazing fire]

I've read up 2 reviews on this lens, both of which gave full marks on performance. Looking at optic performance alone, is this lens really that good?

Note: I do know it is expensive and heavy

Lens review: Bythom, Bjørn Rørslett

[Franglais]

The 17-35 f2.8 was released about the same time as my (film) F100. It was the wonder lens that combined wide wide angle, pro wide aperture and build plus excellent performance. It was the first of a line of lenses where Nikon "broke the rules".

So after a while I bought one (at a good price) for my DSLR's. It's excellent. The images have something extra about them, an exceptional clarity and contrast (like my other f2.8 constant zooms).

HOWEVER - when I actually test it against my designed-for-digital 18-70 DX or 16-85 DX VR and start pixel peeping at 200% magnification, the DX lenses win hands down in terms of resolution.

How is it possible for a kit lens to beat a lens costing 5 times more?

1. The DX lenses have to cover a smaller image circle
2. The DX lenses don't have to open out to f2.8 at all focal lengths
3. Just possibly - the DX lenses are optimised for digital while the 17-35 is optimised for film

Yes it's a great lens but I only use it when I absolutely have to have that f2.8 aperture (sports, theatre).

You want a really great FX lens for digital, get the 24-70 f2.8 or the 14-24 f2.8

[deckcadet]

I disagree with Charles on its resolution versus the 18-70 and 16-85. My experiences do not coincide with his when comparing same-aperture same-focal-length performance. The 17-35 is a great lens.

The 14-24 and 24-70 are sharper, but they are VERY expensive in comparison and the 14-24 can't use filters.

You can trust Bjørn's reviews- I know him personally, and he is every bit as exacting and knowledgeable as his reputation indicates.

[blazing fire]

You can trust Bjørn's reviews

That's reassuring. Another good reviewer that I can bookmark

It maybe possible that Franglais got a defective unit, as the chances of getting one is quite high. Out of 10 lens that bjorn bought, only 8 were decent. Hence the different findings.

Since this review was incepted, I have had shooting and testing experience with quite a number (more than 10) of 17-35 Nikkors both on my D1 and F5 cameras. The reasons for this are the persistent rumours that this lens is inferior to the 20-35 Nikkor. When I first got my personal sample of the 17-35 , it didn't take me long to detect this sample lens showed severe faults of focus shifts and decentered elements. Since the first two or three of these lenses I had used were superb, I wouldn't accept no less for my own use. So, I demanded a packing case filled with 17-35 lenses for testing from the national Nikon dealer, and surprise, got it! Thorough testing of all these 17-35 Nikkors indicated that mild decentering isn't uncommon, and the same goes for focus shifts. A sample size of 10 is to small to draw any statistical significant conclusions, but finding that 2 out of 10 lenses had severe decentering problems was discouraging. Eventually I located a perfect 17-35 AFS and kept it for my personal use. It has proven itself a highly useful all-round lens on my D1. In fact, my records show I use it each and every day. Must be a real favourite, then.
I see on the Web different opinions regarding the flare and ghosting propensity of the AFS 17-35 Nikkor. In my experience, most such issues are neatly solved simply by removing any filter on the lens. In fact, if you leave a UV filter on "for protection", you are certain to be rewarded with a quite ugly, greenish and elongated ghosting spot upon shooting into the sun. This ugly ghost arises from the inwards bulge in the front lens, which actually "focuses" the flare onto the filter underside and thus allows it to be imaged by the lens. So, unscrew your filter(s) and make sure the front element is immaculately clean.

That being said, I doubt I'll get this lens.

[Franglais]

It maybe possible that Franglais got a defective unit, as the chances of getting one is quite high. Out of 10 lens that bjorn bought, only 8 were decent. Hence the different findings.

Seems likely. Never mind. It gives lovely results and there is no visible difference compared with the DX lenses on an A4 print, which is what counts. It's only when I started pixel-peeping that I realised it was less than excellent.
.

[deckcadet]

Because of the ghosting spot?
I'll tell you, I shot it on the F3 and the D70 and D200... you could have the full sun well inside the 35mm frame and have not a hint of flare. Stick a filter on, and the reflections kill it shooting into the sun though. Really is night and day.