Is 17-35mm f2.8 Nikon still good?

Started 5 months ago | Discussions thread
Michael Benveniste
Michael Benveniste Veteran Member • Posts: 5,495
Re: Is 17-35mm f2.8 Nikon still good?
6

jassyou wrote:

I am thinking to buy f2.8 lens for landscape photography and this lens is one of the options. the price also is affordable. I do not want to buy 12-24 because I cannot use filter. Is this lens still good or is there any options?

A 17-35mm f/2.8 is not a substitute for a 12-24mm or 14-24mm lens.  It is possible, albeit clumsy and expensive, to use a 150mm filter system with those lenses.  Which filters are you thinking of using?

I just spent just under $600 to replace the AF motor on my 17-35mm f/2.8 and generally refurb the lens.  Since I do own a 14-24mm it was not an easy decision.  I certainly can't recommend spending almost $2000 for a new one.  Used copies are a lot cheaper, but there's a real chance that you too will face a eventual $600 repair bill.
In terms of optical performance, it's a solid step back from the Tamron 15-30mm, Sigma 14-24mm, or Nikon 14-24mm lenses.  Given that it's a 20-year old design, that shouldn't be a shock.  A brand new Tamron 17-35mm f/2.8~4 would have cost me the same, but I couldn't use it with my older film cameras.

For film cameras and full-frame early dSLR's, the 17-35mm was a great lens.  It's still good, but I can no longer call it great.  Despite the filter issue, I feel that the modern alternatives may be better for most users.  Nikon recently discontinued this lens and the only thing which surprises me is that it took so long.

-- hide signature --

Light travels at 2.13085531 × 10^14 smoots per fortnight. Catch some today!

 Michael Benveniste's gear list:Michael Benveniste's gear list
Nikon Coolpix 995 Nikon D800 Nikon 1 V2 Nikon D7200 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX85 +43 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow