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

Started 5 months ago | Discussions thread
lightandaprayer Senior Member • Posts: 4,090
Re: Nikon site good because of MTF

Leonard Shepherd wrote:This perhaps brings us full circle. The 17-35 (and 28-70) were good in the their era though more as distinct from no stopping down was needed for very sharp corners.

The latest finest optics need less stopping down for critically sharp corners (as in sharper the the eye can resolve in a 16x12 inch print) - but cost more money.

The lenses are often heavier and larger as well. . . The old Nikkor UWA 2.8 zooms are relatively small and light, something I appreciate being a traveling photographer who likes to pack light. The AF-S motor aside, they are also rugged little beasts.

Unfortunately, Nikon hasn't introduced a modern version of the 17-35. The 14-24 does not count as its replacement because it lacks the IMO more convenient range that tops out at 35mm. I very rarely wish I had 14mm but I shoot at 35mm a lot. I can photograph many more subjects using only a 17-35 zoom. If I had a 14-24 I would need to carry a 24-70 where now I can be content with a single lens.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow