Nikkor 17 - 35mm Lens - Anyone got one?

Leif M. Svendsen said:

Dan Massey said:

Leif M. Svendsen said:

Bill Harris said:

Well I got my D1, but not the 17 - 35 lens! Anyone gotten theres yet?

Bill

Click to expand...

Why buy the 17-35 mm lens? The 24-120mm lens (D1 = 36-180mm) cost only
25% of a 17-35 mm and has a greater range (well not in wide angle).

Regards
Leif M. Svendsen

Click to expand...

Come now. Let's be sensible about this.

The 24-120 is one of the lowest quality lenses to bear the Nikon name. It
is reported to have distinctly mediocre resolution and contrast, even at
the center of the image and at "sweet spot" f-stops, like f/8. Its
maximum aperture drops to f/4 at 35mm and to f/5 at 85mm. It uses the
"standard" AF mechanism.

The 17-35 is Nikon's most up to date and advanced wide angle zoom
formula, with constant f/2.8 aperture over its entire range. The few
people who have been able to test one report it is razor sharp with very
high contrast. It uses Nikon's high-speed AF-S mechanism, which permits
mixed manual and AF control without flipping switches.

I'm not sure there's any basis for comparison between these lenses.They
address completely different markets with completely different standards
of quality and performance.

...Dan

Click to expand...

You got me there... I'm an old (47!) F2 user, and I have equipment bought
23 year ago (still superb lenses)... I did not know Nikon made 'poor'
lenses nowadays.
Then I will cancel the 24-120mm lens and go for the 17-35mm lens.
Thanks.

Regards
Leif

Click to expand...

I apologize if my response to your question seemed a little tart. I don't think Nikon makes any "poor" products, but there is a noticeable difference in quality and features across the Nikon range. You might want to check out http://www.photodo.com for some very detailed test results on a wide range of lenses from major manufacturers and third-party developers.

While these tests are controversial in that no bunch of numbers can tell you how good a picture you're going to get (since so much of it depends on the photographer, not the equipment), they provide some hard data on the good, the bad, and the real "dogs". The 24-120 Nikon rates a 2.3 on their tests, which puts it pretty far down the list in technical quality.

The 17-35/2.8 has not been tested, but its astronomical cost is due to such features as internal focusing (front element doesn't rotate), low dispersion optical glass, and very fast and silent autofocus (the AF-S designation).The 20-35/2.8 is a similar lens with slightly less range and a slightly less fancy AF mechanism for slightly less money.

...Dan

While I do not agree with your assessment of the 24-120mm f3.5-5.6, I do agree that it serves a different purpose than the 17-35 f2.8.

I am a firm believer in fast optics and think that the 17-35mm serves its purpose in the wide angle range, especially for the D1. IMHO, The 17-35mm coupled with the 35-70 mm f2.8 and the 80-200mm f2.8 (or the newer incarnations of those lenses), make an awesome combination of Nikon optics. The only drawback -- weight.

I find that a wide range zoom like the 24-120mm is an excellent selection when weight and/or space is an issue.

Just my opinion.

M. Gordon

Dan Massey said:

Leif M. Svendsen said:

Bill Harris said:

Well I got my D1, but not the 17 - 35 lens! Anyone gotten theres yet?

Bill

Click to expand...

Why buy the 17-35 mm lens? The 24-120mm lens (D1 = 36-180mm) cost only
25% of a 17-35 mm and has a greater range (well not in wide angle).

Regards
Leif M. Svendsen

Click to expand...

Come now. Let's be sensible about this.

The 24-120 is one of the lowest quality lenses to bear the Nikon name. It
is reported to have distinctly mediocre resolution and contrast, even at
the center of the image and at "sweet spot" f-stops, like f/8. Its
maximum aperture drops to f/4 at 35mm and to f/5 at 85mm. It uses the
"standard" AF mechanism.

The 17-35 is Nikon's most up to date and advanced wide angle zoom
formula, with constant f/2.8 aperture over its entire range. The few
people who have been able to test one report it is razor sharp with very
high contrast. It uses Nikon's high-speed AF-S mechanism, which permits
mixed manual and AF control without flipping switches.

I'm not sure there's any basis for comparison between these lenses.They
address completely different markets with completely different standards
of quality and performance.

...Dan

Click to expand...

Bill Harris said:

Well I got my D1, but not the 17 - 35 lens! Anyone gotten theres yet?

Bill

Click to expand...

For those interested in this lens, my first set of pictures are posted on my site at:

http://www.nikoninformant.com

Bill

I see a lot of 404 Error messages.

One picture of a little girl (2nd from left)
One of a horse (3rd from left)

I assume that the little girl is not the one you call "Sparky" on that page

Bill Harris said:

Bill Harris said:

Well I got my D1, but not the 17 - 35 lens! Anyone gotten theres yet?

Bill

Click to expand...

For those interested in this lens, my first set of pictures are posted on
my site at:

http://www.nikoninformant.com

Bill

Click to expand...

Bill Harris said:

Well I got my D1, but not the 17 - 35 lens! Anyone gotten theres yet?

Bill

Click to expand...

I have just been notified to come and pick up my 17-35 lens. But not my D1. I'll be playing with the lens on an F5 and a Kodak DCS 315 while waiting for "the other shoe to drop."

With its 2.6x focal length multiplier, the 315 needed to have a lens like this a year and a half ago when Kodak introduced it. Pretty much "overtaken by events now."

Last cliche: "It's a jungle out there..."

...Dan

Dan Massey said:

Bill Harris said:

Well I got my D1, but not the 17 - 35 lens! Anyone gotten theres yet?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Picking mine up tomorrow from Adorama in NY. Got my D1 last week with a microdrive and an SB28-dx. Now I need two more batteries and I'm ripping. The D1 is awesome!