Reading mode: Light Dark

17-35mm f/2.8 on a D700?

Go to last post
P

Poly Morphic

Active member
Messages
66
Reaction score
0
do any of you shoot a 17-35mm on a D700?

I am seriously considering this lens for exclusive use on a D700, but I wonder how it performs?

I am not quite ready to get a 14-24mm, but then again I wonder about that too.
 
I shoot both 17-35 and 14-24 on a D3. Both lenses have excellent IQ, Personally, I love the colours of 14-24 but filters cannot be used on it.

There're pictures were taken by 17-35 @ ISO200, 5S, F/14 (minimal PP):



17-35 @ ISO200, 30S, F/11 (minimal PP):



The following one was taken with 14-24 @ISO200, 4S, F/11 (minimal PP):



--
CM
http://www.pbase.com/cmkwan
 
I hate to say it, but did you search at all??? There was a thread on this just the other day.

I LOVE the 17-35 on the D700. The 14-24 is better optically (almost perfect?), but the 17-35 is still outstanding and a more useful range IMHO, much easier to hike with etc. I brought them both on a recent road trip, but rarely used the 14-24 and often found it too wide when I did. The 17-35 never disapointed.

The only hesitation I have recomending it is that there may be an update coming from Nikon given the 12-24 technology. That's the only way I'll part with my 17-35.
Poly Morphic said:
do any of you shoot a 17-35mm on a D700?

I am seriously considering this lens for exclusive use on a D700, but
I wonder how it performs?

I am not quite ready to get a 14-24mm, but then again I wonder about
that too.
Click to expand...
 
hi,

sorry, nope I did not search, I am sorry I was such a lazy bum...

what makes you think that nikon will update the 17-35mm at all? I mean
isn't that what the 14-24mm already does?
dylanear said:
I LOVE the 17-35 on the D700. The 14-24 is better optically (almost
perfect?), but the 17-35 is still outstanding and a more useful range
IMHO, much easier to hike with etc. I brought them both on a recent
road trip, but rarely used the 14-24 and often found it too wide when
I did. The 17-35 never disapointed.

The only hesitation I have recomending it is that there may be an
update coming from Nikon given the 12-24 technology. That's the only
way I'll part with my 17-35.
Poly Morphic said:
do any of you shoot a 17-35mm on a D700?

I am seriously considering this lens for exclusive use on a D700, but
I wonder how it performs?

I am not quite ready to get a 14-24mm, but then again I wonder about
that too.
Click to expand...
--
Click to expand...
 
I have a 17-35mm and a D700. I use it a lot and it is one of my favourite lenses.

I use it for 'landscape' style shots and also for some architectural details, abstracts. It is also great in crowds (friends, markets, etc).

The 12-24 looks like a lovely lens but IMO it is too much of a niche lens for my uses. I often use the extra reach of the 17-35mm and only rarely wish it would go wider.

Some of mine:



http://www.flickr.com/photos/hooly/2909990428/



http://www.flickr.com/photos/hooly/3179801577/



http://www.flickr.com/photos/hooly/3194458197/



http://www.flickr.com/photos/hooly/2811526774/

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hooly/
 
Its a subherb lens (and its getting difficult to find one over here) i use it with the D700 and its just marvelous, my latest landscapes @ flickr are done with the D700+17-35 f2.8 if you want to have a look...i wouldnt doubt!

As mentioned there allready severall threads with the same question...
--
My flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/_gman_/
 
I could be wrong, but I'd guess around the same time a new 70-200VR comes out, they may release a 16-35 2.8. the 14-24 eclipses the 17-35 optically, but it does not replace it in my mind, two different lenses in practical use. 14-24 is always pretty darn wide, the 17-35 has a much more flexible range, from quite wide to more mid range. Canon has a 16-25 out and just for marketing parity I could see them matching that spec and with the new optical technologies in the 14-24 an improved version would be a nice upgrade.
Poly Morphic said:
sorry, nope I did not search, I am sorry I was such a lazy bum...

what makes you think that nikon will update the 17-35mm at all? I mean
isn't that what the 14-24mm already does?
dylanear said:
I LOVE the 17-35 on the D700. The 14-24 is better optically (almost
perfect?), but the 17-35 is still outstanding and a more useful range
IMHO, much easier to hike with etc. I brought them both on a recent
road trip, but rarely used the 14-24 and often found it too wide when
I did. The 17-35 never disapointed.

The only hesitation I have recomending it is that there may be an
update coming from Nikon given the 12-24 technology. That's the only
way I'll part with my 17-35.
Poly Morphic said:
do any of you shoot a 17-35mm on a D700?

I am seriously considering this lens for exclusive use on a D700, but
I wonder how it performs?

I am not quite ready to get a 14-24mm, but then again I wonder about
that too.
Click to expand...
--
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
The 14-24 may be sharper, but my 17-35 is very sharp, in the same league as my 70-200VR. The 17-35 is sharper than any prime in that range I've tried, save perhaps the 28mm 1.4 stopped down. If the one you have or have tried is "pretty soft" I'd try another. It's an excellent lens. Canon users often used them with adapter rather than the canon wide zooms until the latest version of the 16-35 simply because it was sharper than what canon was making.
laurentiu1 said:
compared to a prime or a tele zoom like 70-200vr. don't know how
sharp is 14-24. anyway , 17-35 will probably be discontinued. nikon
has a new pro line up going wider. 35-70, the ex pro standard zoom is
out so 17-35 probably will go to.
--

http://www.laurentiudinca.co.uk
Click to expand...
 
Poly Morphic said:
do any of you shoot a 17-35mm on a D700?

I am seriously considering this lens for exclusive use on a D700, but
I wonder how it performs?

I am not quite ready to get a 14-24mm, but then again I wonder about
that too.
Click to expand...
yes and it's amazing on my d700. razor sharp wide open but i usually stop it down because it's a scenery/landscape lens for me. the color and contrast are excellent. it's well built. plus it takes 77mm filters unlike the 14-24 which doesn't take any filters.

--
Darrin Lingle
 
It really is made for an FX camera. It's my favorite for landscapes, so it is usually stopped down.



--
-Kent

Life is too short for slow glass.
http://www.pbase.com/kjoosten
 
'soft' would be the sign of a bad sample.

The 17-35 is a sharp lens, and easily visually as sharp as the 70-200. Additionally, the lens is sharper than the primes in its focal range. Wide open it's not razor sharp, but most lenses aren't..
--
Teila K. Day
 
laurentiu1 said:
compared to a prime or a tele zoom like 70-200vr. don't know how
sharp is 14-24. anyway , 17-35 will probably be discontinued. nikon
has a new pro line up going wider. 35-70, the ex pro standard zoom is
out so 17-35 probably will go to.
--
Click to expand...
The 17-35 has been one of Nikon's legends since it was introduced. I don't think it's going anywhere other than on more people's FX cameras. I use it as my standard wide with my D200/D300. (I also have 12-24DX).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top