1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

17-35 AFS or 28 1.4D?

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by jfenton, Mar 21, 2005.

  1. jfenton


    Jan 26, 2005
    Haverhill, MA
    I currently have a 17-35 AFS.

    I shoot mainly landscapes~sunrises-sunsets with it.

    The 17mm end always seems to wide and on wide shots at tghe oces, you definetly pick up the curvature from the lens (yes I know that I can straighten it in photoshop and NC).

    How does the 28 1.4D fare as a landscape lens and all around...is it more versatile than the 17-35 due to it's lower light abilities?

  2. dkapp


    Mar 18, 2005
    San Francisco
    How about 17-55. From what I read, it has better performance & less flare than the 17-35. Since you mentioned sunrise/sunset, this could be a big issue.

    28/1.4 is great for low light, handheld work. If your shooting landscapes, wouldn't you be stopped down & using a tripod?

    When I think of landscape lens, the 28 isn't the first lens that jumps to mind. You may even want to consider the 12-24 instead. I don't see any FF cameras in your gear, so I assume you'd be OK w/ DX lenses.

  3. nfoto

    nfoto Guest

    If you want maximum flare, do look into the 17-55. It is a nice and versatile lens, but flare resistance is *not* among its strong points. Both the 17-35 and 28/1.4 would be much better in this respect.
  4. jfenton


    Jan 26, 2005
    Haverhill, MA

    Hi Bjorn...

    I guess my real issue is that I use the 17-35 mostly for sunsets / sunrises and landscapes and I quite honestly fins that it is TOO WIDE for many of my applications. The areas that I shoot don't lend themselves to zooming closer with my feet and I'm now wondering if there isn't something longer that might suit my needs. I could sell this in a heartbeat and perhaps buy a 45P or even one of the 50mm lenses and have some cash left to put towards more long glass for my wildlife shots.

    Additionally, while the distortion is fairly well controlled on the widest end of the 17-35, it is certainly there.

    In your opinion, is the 45P any better / worse than the 50 1.8 / 1.4 for this application? I had a 45P previously and found it to be sharp...rather unobtrusive, cool and it gave good shadow details. I never did try it in this specific application however before selling it.

    Thanks in advance....
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.