17-35mm AFS- Sampling of my first pics.

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by AFS, Aug 8, 2005.

  1. Well, I've taken my latest Lens Lust hit, and purchased the AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF. I can see why Bjorn has it as one of the 4 zooms that made it onto his "best of the best" list! 2 down(17-35, 70-200), 1 soon (28-70 ) enough and the last isn't too far off I hope...(200-400).
    Anyways enough lens lust.....
    My thoughts on this lens: (pics follow the tirade :p )
    WOW was the first thing that popped into my head as I took it into my hands from the person I purchased it from. This lens is a monster! :twisted: The build is awesome, and it looks great! Perfect contours, that nice scalloped lens hood....pure lens heaven! Solid feel of the zoom ring and the focus ring has a nice feel to it too....much nicer than my 18-70's that is for sure, and I like it better than the VR.....though I found my former 24/2.8D to be a bit better damped.....i supposed its the AFS talking :)
    Focus I found to be not only blindingly fast, but also close enough that if you're gonna shoot something at the minimum focus distance, I suggest you get acquainted with them first :shock:
    As far as the range, I'd been a bit afraid i'd feel limited, but I like the range....it gets wide enough for all of my purposes (for now, but that's a story for a different lens), and it gets close enough for many situations. The good thing is that if I can't zoom tight enough, at least for static objects and some people/animals I can always get a bit closer and still be able to focus. I suppose the 28-70 will be a people lens, but this lens does an admirable job for its range anyways. And the 35-70 gap for me, although large and oft-used before, isn't a problem for now. Until I grab the 28-70, I might make do with a 45/2.8P or nothing at all in that range, limit myself a bit. Most of my work in that range is people anyways, so it'll fit.
    Practical results....I was as blown away by this lens and its quality at wide angles and close distances as I was by my 70-200 VR at tele, with VR, and with closeups. This lens does well on the bokeh front, and it can isolate a subject pretty nicely. I can tell its gonna be a great landscape lens, a great wide angle, but also a great flowers/plants close lens. It compliments the 70-200 VR quite well...although I have to say, I went outside today for an hour with the 17-35 mounted and the 70-200 in its nylon case.....which it didn't leave the whole time. My 70-200 is going to be my sports lens this school year, and I can already see it is going to be doing a larger amount of its work in that position than I previously thought, because the 17-35 is going to stay on the camera a LOT!
    Now the ever present question....SHARPNESS!
    This lens makes a pin seem dull! It holds its own against my 70-200 VR from what i've seen so far at just about all apertures. There are some who say it isn't fantastic wide open.....I say NO WAY! This thing is REALLY sharp wide open, and it (somehow, don't ask me how, but it does) improves a good amount at f/4, and f/5.6. I'm far from afraid to shoot wide open unless i'm uncertain about DOF, but I can tell like my 70-200 i'll do a lot of shooting with this between f/2.8 and f/4. Brilliant results. I haven't taken many landscape pics yet, but from what I have done so far i'm quite pleased in that regard, and it is just as sharp close up.
    I have to say, I wasn't expecting these results from f/2.8 from some of the reports I heard, though other reports were favorable...but this lens is absolutely fantastic at that aperture.
    My only frustration at the moment is that in some of my first landscape shots, the highlights (blown sky behind leaves) seem to have a little bit of CA.....maybe its not CA though, but that coma stuff I hear about... its purple, and the RAW tools for Photoshop seem to help it a bit, but not entirely...maybe one of the experts can help me if I post a 100% crop of it. It only seems to show up in Photoshop though, not really MS Raw Viewer, not to the same degree or same type. I see what may be a bit of reddish or orange-ish fringing in MS Raw Viewer, 1-2 pixels wide tops, and very mild....In Photoshop I see purple that is 2-4 pixels.....very strange, but I don't really care. Nothing a bit of work won't cure, if it shows up at all :)
    Anyways, enough of my rambling. I did some practical shooting with the lens almost immediately after I picked it up. When I got home I continued my shooting, and both yesterday and today I did a fair amount of shooting (about 500 shots since pickup). Subjects from myself, the car, family, and the kitty, to the house, and backyards at both houses...there's even a surprise photo :)
    So, without any further ado, my very own 17-35 AFS gallery!
    56K Warning.....You may want to check out the link for my Nikonians gallery rather than wait for these pics to load.....The link is....

    http://www.nikonians-images.com/galleries/showgallery.php?ppuser=24761&cat=500&password=
    All the pics in the gallery up to the pure black frame called 'perfect shot lol'
    Tomorrow I will embed a few of the pics.
    Enjoy!
    Harrison
     
  2. Seems to be a lot of enthusiasm in the Cafe for the 17-55 but when I shot film, I really loved my Nikkor 25-50 f4 and I still find myself shooting a lot in that range so the 17-35 is going to be a permanent fixture in my arsenal.

    Great lens... worthy of being called one of the best. I love mine.

    Woody
     
  3. this lens is NOT good for my first credit card.....
    Oh, I realized, as I tried to use the flash, I need an SB600.
    So last night I went over to Best Buy, got my $150 credit for the late repairs on my computer, and put it towards one.
    Now I've got it all, pro wide and tele lenses, killer camera, and a speedlight.
     
  4. Przemek

    Przemek Guest

    Shoot some more pictures and show them off. I used this lens a little before (not mine) and was very impressed. Perhaps I'll get myself one by Christmas. There's of course the 17-55mm, but I'm more and more swayed toward the 17-35mm, especially that as cost-inefficient as it may sound, I'm thinking of going back to film for a while.

    Congratulations on your new purchase.

    Kind Regards,
    Przemek

     
  5. Well, my own laptop is due back from servicing tomorrow, and hopefully it will function as designed. I've got about 250 D70 JPEG Lg/Fine shots to download, and guess what.....
    all of them were 17-35 shots :) every last one.
    I'm LOVING this lens. The results with my SB600 are phenomenal. I just close down to f/5.6 for people pics. I've done mainly people pics with flash indoors and for fill, natural light in daylight, landscapes (natural light at f/5.6, 8, and 11), wide shots of rooms with bounce flash, and a few closeups.
    Not many nature pics since the above ones, but I'll get some more of those.
    I need to find a way to make my pics edit and post themselves!
    And school starts in just 3 days.....
    This lens is definitely bad for me though....It says BUY A HEAVIER BODY!
    Flash helps the balance a bit, but I'm thinking about screwing a weight into my tripod socket.

    Przemek: Buy it! No infinity focus problem, build is just beautiful, and it will work with digital perfectly, and film equally well. I mean, there's no telling when you might go back to film, and then drop it, then go back again.....and if they ever do for some reason do FF, you're safe.
    You won't regret it. I've been spoiled by the 70-200 VR, and it's been languishing in its case since the 17-35 first clicked onto the F-Mount. The only complaint I've got is I didn't get one sooner.
     
  6. biggstr6

    biggstr6

    Apr 26, 2005
    Richmond,Va
    Couldnt Agree more , I love mine.
     
  7. Przemek

    Przemek Guest

    Thanks! That's certainly encouraging. I have yet to see someone unhappy with the 17-35mm f/2.8. So far nobody, while there have been some complaints against the 17-55mm. I'll try to buy the 17-35mm when I collect enough $$$.

    Kind Regards,
    Przemek

     
Loading...