Nikkor 17-35 and D100

[James Haskell]

Ok.

Let say Nikkor 17-35 is THAT good, and all the online stuff I read are true, and not a vast Nikon marketing conspiracy, would it continue to be true with D100? It is supposed to be better than prime lenses?

Any guess?

One reason I ask is because years back when the 24-120 just came out, that was all the rage. I bought the lens. Now, it gets dumped on.

So was the 37-70/2.8. I bought that too. They say it is still good, but not as good as the 28-70, or whatever.

I did some side-by-side comparisons this morning. Shot the 35-70/2.8 at 35 and 50, and compare it to 35/2 AFS and 50/1.4 AF, at f2.8 and f8. The distance is medium, around 50 yards.

The results are close to the same, with the zoom beating the 35 slightly, but the 50 beating the zoom slightly at that focal length.

But I wonder when the pixel count is increased with the D100, would the zoom still hold up?

I am thinking of buying the 17-35, but just wondering if I will regrat when the D100 comes out if the zoom would not be better than or close to prime lenses quality-wise. Would everybody be hawking some other lens then and the rest of us are stuck with our expensive 17-35?

Any idea?

James

 

[Paul Caldwell]

As far as the 17-35 working with the D100, I don't see any reason it shouldn't work with it as well as it works with the D1 family or any of the current Nikon film family. Since the D100 is a N80 body, its fully supported.

As for the lens itself. I can tell you that it depends. My 17-35 is actually sharper than my 24mm 2.8 prime at 24. It wasn't however until Nikon worked on the lens and told me it was within specs. They claimed they didn't do anything, yet I have the before and after images to prove it. My point, is test the lens before you buy it. I wouldn't buy this over the web unless you really know the vendor, someone like Mike at Newtonville Camera. Let whoever it is, know up front you plan on testing the lens. You will have problems with some of the big houses, they don't like returns for issues like quality. I wouldn't buy it from a local vendor unless they had more than one in stock either. Believe me if they only have one, its been out of the box before and more than likely many times.

Both my 28-70 and 17-35 are now top end glass, and I wouldn't trade them for anything. Neither lens was when I purchased it. Both lenses had to go back to Nikon. Both lenses came back from Nikon within specs, however both are remarkably sharp now, go figure. I have only used them on the D1 and now D1x.

Paul

Ok.

Let say Nikkor 17-35 is THAT good, and all the online stuff I read
are true, and not a vast Nikon marketing conspiracy, would it
continue to be true with D100? It is supposed to be better than
prime lenses?

Any guess?

One reason I ask is because years back when the 24-120 just came
out, that was all the rage. I bought the lens. Now, it gets
dumped on.

So was the 37-70/2.8. I bought that too. They say it is still
good, but not as good as the 28-70, or whatever.

I did some side-by-side comparisons this morning. Shot the
35-70/2.8 at 35 and 50, and compare it to 35/2 AFS and 50/1.4 AF,
at f2.8 and f8. The distance is medium, around 50 yards.

The results are close to the same, with the zoom beating the 35
slightly, but the 50 beating the zoom slightly at that focal length.

But I wonder when the pixel count is increased with the D100, would
the zoom still hold up?

I am thinking of buying the 17-35, but just wondering if I will
regrat when the D100 comes out if the zoom would not be better than
or close to prime lenses quality-wise. Would everybody be hawking
some other lens then and the rest of us are stuck with our
expensive 17-35?

Any idea?

James

 

[James Haskell]

Paul,

Thanks. I could use more of these reassuring real-life stories.

My point about the D100 17-35 combo is that since D100 has a better resolution than D1h and D1x (which is not a true 3000x2000 camera), might the 17-35 hit its "limit"? But then again somebody said it is just as perfect on an F5, which of course has a lot more resolving power than either the D1-series or D100, so that should be OK.

By the way, how did you happen to send your 17-35 into Nikon? I own tons of Nikon stuff but never did deal with them. Is this a "service" checkup? How much did it cost? Maybe this is Nikon's catch -- you will only get the best out of the lenses if you send it back to us for service! Ha!

Thanks again.

James

As for the lens itself. I can tell you that it depends. My 17-35
is actually sharper than my 24mm 2.8 prime at 24. It wasn't
however until Nikon worked on the lens and told me it was within
specs. They claimed they didn't do anything, yet I have the before
and after images to prove it. My point, is test the lens before
you buy it. I wouldn't buy this over the web unless you really
know the vendor, someone like Mike at Newtonville Camera. Let
whoever it is, know up front you plan on testing the lens. You
will have problems with some of the big houses, they don't like
returns for issues like quality. I wouldn't buy it from a local
vendor unless they had more than one in stock either. Believe me
if they only have one, its been out of the box before and more than
likely many times.

Both my 28-70 and 17-35 are now top end glass, and I wouldn't trade
them for anything. Neither lens was when I purchased it. Both
lenses had to go back to Nikon. Both lenses came back from Nikon
within specs, however both are remarkably sharp now, go figure. I
have only used them on the D1 and now D1x.

Paul

Ok.

Let say Nikkor 17-35 is THAT good, and all the online stuff I read
are true, and not a vast Nikon marketing conspiracy, would it
continue to be true with D100? It is supposed to be better than
prime lenses?

Any guess?

One reason I ask is because years back when the 24-120 just came
out, that was all the rage. I bought the lens. Now, it gets
dumped on.

So was the 37-70/2.8. I bought that too. They say it is still
good, but not as good as the 28-70, or whatever.

I did some side-by-side comparisons this morning. Shot the
35-70/2.8 at 35 and 50, and compare it to 35/2 AFS and 50/1.4 AF,
at f2.8 and f8. The distance is medium, around 50 yards.

The results are close to the same, with the zoom beating the 35
slightly, but the 50 beating the zoom slightly at that focal length.

But I wonder when the pixel count is increased with the D100, would
the zoom still hold up?

I am thinking of buying the 17-35, but just wondering if I will
regrat when the D100 comes out if the zoom would not be better than
or close to prime lenses quality-wise. Would everybody be hawking
some other lens then and the rest of us are stuck with our
expensive 17-35?

Any idea?

James

 

[sarhento]

Paul,

Could you please share with us some tips on how to test lenses? I have all Nikkor lenses, but I need some "reassurance" that my units are within specs.

sarhento

As for the lens itself. I can tell you that it depends. My 17-35
is actually sharper than my 24mm 2.8 prime at 24. It wasn't
however until Nikon worked on the lens and told me it was within
specs. They claimed they didn't do anything, yet I have the before
and after images to prove it. My point, is test the lens before
you buy it. I wouldn't buy this over the web unless you really
know the vendor, someone like Mike at Newtonville Camera. Let
whoever it is, know up front you plan on testing the lens. You
will have problems with some of the big houses, they don't like
returns for issues like quality. I wouldn't buy it from a local
vendor unless they had more than one in stock either. Believe me
if they only have one, its been out of the box before and more than
likely many times.

Both my 28-70 and 17-35 are now top end glass, and I wouldn't trade
them for anything. Neither lens was when I purchased it. Both
lenses had to go back to Nikon. Both lenses came back from Nikon
within specs, however both are remarkably sharp now, go figure. I
have only used them on the D1 and now D1x.

Paul

Ok.

Let say Nikkor 17-35 is THAT good, and all the online stuff I read
are true, and not a vast Nikon marketing conspiracy, would it
continue to be true with D100? It is supposed to be better than
prime lenses?

Any guess?

One reason I ask is because years back when the 24-120 just came
out, that was all the rage. I bought the lens. Now, it gets
dumped on.

So was the 37-70/2.8. I bought that too. They say it is still
good, but not as good as the 28-70, or whatever.

I did some side-by-side comparisons this morning. Shot the
35-70/2.8 at 35 and 50, and compare it to 35/2 AFS and 50/1.4 AF,
at f2.8 and f8. The distance is medium, around 50 yards.

The results are close to the same, with the zoom beating the 35
slightly, but the 50 beating the zoom slightly at that focal length.

But I wonder when the pixel count is increased with the D100, would
the zoom still hold up?

I am thinking of buying the 17-35, but just wondering if I will
regrat when the D100 comes out if the zoom would not be better than
or close to prime lenses quality-wise. Would everybody be hawking
some other lens then and the rest of us are stuck with our
expensive 17-35?

Any idea?

James

 

[Pete Biro]

I had a friend that was in to Leicas. He would test a lens, take it back, test another, and maybe another... in the end he would pick one.

His testing seemed to be more important to him than the photographs.

Frankly, in use, and not shooting test patterns, it was literally impossible to tell one lens from another.

He would go nuts looking for the lens with the sharpest corners, yet, when you take pictures, like portaits, etc. he would want the backgrounds (corners) soft?

Go figure.

So, my answer is "Are you happy with your photos with a given lens?"

If so, quit worrying about pixels and whatever...

Happy Easter--Pete Biro

 

[James Haskell]

I had a friend that was in to Leicas. He would test a lens, take it
back, test another, and maybe another... in the end he would pick
one.

You talking about me? Oh wait, I sold my Leica's long time ago, sorry.

But seriously, we are talking about spending $$$ here, with the darn thing way over $1000. If sharpness and quality are not factors, then we might as well buy cheap zooms instead (and get a 2nd D100 body).

James

 

[Trent Mulkern]

You bring up an interesting question, especially for the price of some of these lenses. You can shoot newsprint or lens resolution charts all day, but then what do you compare against. In real life you shoot objects, scenes, and people for which many other factors come into play.

When I sold my Canon kit, I did ran into a gent who wanted a guaranty that the 85mm USM f/1.2 L would resolve 150 LPI as he had run into too many of these lenses that failed this test. Mine passed fortunately as it was the sharpest lens in my Canon kit at the time. When I expanded my Nikon kit I found the Nikon 85mm f/1.4 D sharper still - go figure. As these lenses don't come with resolution specs, it is most difficult to judge what is a good lens other than if it meets your needs or not.

I guess you could buy a good lens resolution chart and set yourself a standard of sharpness to apply to any lens you buy. Then what that standard would be escapes me and if it is different for different lenses also escapes me. I would think it would depend on a print publishing standard.

Sorry not to be of more help. Perghaps others can step in and provide a chart source and standard.

Happy Easter.
Trent

I had a friend that was in to Leicas. He would test a lens, take it
back, test another, and maybe another... in the end he would pick
one.

You talking about me? Oh wait, I sold my Leica's long time ago,
sorry.

But seriously, we are talking about spending $$$ here, with the
darn thing way over $1000. If sharpness and quality are not
factors, then we might as well buy cheap zooms instead (and get a
2nd D100 body).

James

 

[Paul F Caldwell]

Zoe,

Actually Pete brings up a good point, I don't agree with it, but to each their own. When I the cost of the lens is 1500.00 or higher, I want to test it.

I learned a tremendous amount from Ron Reznick. Ron IMO is one of the best to read when it comes to lens testing. I pretty much take his word for the ulitmate. Ron has tested about every Nikkor lens I know of and has written reports of each. He can tell you the sweet spot of each one, limits and adavantages. His main sites are http://digital-images.net or http://trapagon.com

For my work, (all outdoor shooting, mainly scenic or wildlife. I have a series of tests that I run. What I am looking for is uniform focus across the subject. For telephoto, I have a simple grid pattern I created of 1 inch squares that is about 5 feet x 6 feet. I will shoot this from different distances and then check the images on my PC. I test the images the same way I shoot, raw, no in camera sharpening, and process them the same way I would my normal work, either Qimage or Capture 2.

I also will look for a building that has a definate pattern, that is in a grid. This really isn't hard to find, in fact bricks, or a tile pattern is a good test bed and you can test the wide angle lenses this way. Street sign, i.e. a stop sign, or yield sign etc also work, all you have to do is measure off the distance and then shoot the measured distance.

I also have several spots I shoot during the year, where know the same spot to shoot from. I also have a marked spot off my deck. From this shooting spot, I have trees, leaves all kinds of things I like to shoot in the wild. I have the spot marked with my tripod legs so I can pretty much always get back to the same spot. This was how I noticed the diff. between my 24mm and 17-35.

Paul Caldwell

When I sold my Canon kit, I did ran into a gent who wanted a
guaranty that the 85mm USM f/1.2 L would resolve 150 LPI as he had
run into too many of these lenses that failed this test. Mine
passed fortunately as it was the sharpest lens in my Canon kit at
the time. When I expanded my Nikon kit I found the Nikon 85mm f/1.4
D sharper still - go figure. As these lenses don't come with
resolution specs, it is most difficult to judge what is a good lens
other than if it meets your needs or not.

I guess you could buy a good lens resolution chart and set yourself
a standard of sharpness to apply to any lens you buy. Then what
that standard would be escapes me and if it is different for
different lenses also escapes me. I would think it would depend on
a print publishing standard.

Sorry not to be of more help. Perghaps others can step in and
provide a chart source and standard.

Happy Easter.
Trent

I had a friend that was in to Leicas. He would test a lens, take it
back, test another, and maybe another... in the end he would pick
one.

You talking about me? Oh wait, I sold my Leica's long time ago,
sorry.

But seriously, we are talking about spending $$$ here, with the
darn thing way over $1000. If sharpness and quality are not
factors, then we might as well buy cheap zooms instead (and get a
2nd D100 body).

James

 

[alfred_schiele]

Hi!

Don't worry mate!

One reason I ask is because years back when the 24-120 just came
out, that was all the rage. I bought the lens. Now, it gets
dumped on.

This zoom may be not the sharpest but it's allover usability is more than remarkable. A very practical lens as I don't like to change multiple zooms, I prefer to change primes then... fade to edges and distortions are also well balanced over the total working range.

The 24-120 has surprisingly low inner reflections and flare or spots in direct light which is sometimes more important than the utmost kick of resolution... I found this even more surprising for such a all-purpose zoom zoom.

It is my one and only all purpose zoom lens and it is ok for everyday shots and I assume it is ok for ridiculous (-: 6M Pixels too... When it comes to extremes I prefer lightweighted primes mostly of even higher speed...

Remind that zooms have more elements inside. Light transmission is generally not the same even when aperture is the same because additional lenses absorb more light...

Keep in mind that the f value is only a geometrical thing and does not respect this issue... even when you attach a ND filter the f value remains the same but it can be easily understood that light transmission is less...

Regards. A. Schiele

 

[Duncan Bristow]

I was wondering what was supposed to be wrong with the 24 to 120 lens? I purchased it about 1.5 years ago and have photographed a large number of weddings using only this lens on an F100. Everyone has been delighted with the images. I will admit, when I shoot a 50 mm f1.4 prime lens on my Pentax LX the images are deflinately better, but don't come close to compensating for the advantages of the Nikon zoom.

 

[Jan Willem Mars]

Duncan

I fully agree with you! I already started to doubt myself... I like the ability to have the wide angles and a portret angle at the same time! I use it on a f90x and the thougth that this lens will become a "36-180" going digital as a consequence of this vocal length issue bothers me so much I'll probably will not go for the d100... (although I must admit that my 17-35 will get more usefull...)

Now how to get those different opinions at one line of reasoning: you can read the opnion of techno/optical freaks (meant possitively!) at this forem. if the people that ask you to have their wedding documentised are simmilar with mine they have a totally different idea of what a good photograph is all about... Not the regular forem visitor...

I really like my 24-120, and is it the ,lens that makes the photo great or is it the "eye" of the person taking the pictures?

Greatings jan Willem

I was wondering what was supposed to be wrong with the 24 to 120
lens? I purchased it about 1.5 years ago and have photographed a
large number of weddings using only this lens on an F100. Everyone
has been delighted with the images. I will admit, when I shoot a
50 mm f1.4 prime lens on my Pentax LX the images are deflinately
better, but don't come close to compensating for the advantages of
the Nikon zoom.

--greatings to you all!some of my photo's at: http://www.xs4all.nl/~jwmars

 

[alfred_schiele]

Hi folks!

Maybe you didn't realize that I love this 24-120 zoom as well. It took me a long wait and some exploration to figure out one I really liked and that confirmd my will of comprimise I have to do when using a zoom... (I thiknk there are few with the 24-120)

But I also wanted to say, that as you confirmed, not to expect the same "high end" quality as from a prime but for such a zoom I still find performance outstanding. I also tried to give reasons why I think so.

So what's wrong here? Let's definitely all keep our 24-120 and be happy! What is better than a good shot compared to a missed brilliant one when changing a prime...

On the other side my personal opinion is to be careful with wide open wide angle zooms. Even primes in this range are not as good as for example the 50mm prime you quote.

Regards, A. Schiele-