17-35mm out of date?

Joined
May 23, 2006
Messages
633
Think again :)

Man, what an awesome combo with all the filter goodness and all, for those contemplating purchasing one of these or a 14-24 go for it! I LOVE this lens on FX.

1.2 ND, .9 RGND, 17-35mm, D700, f/11 @ 1 second

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

1.2 ND, .9 RGND, 17-35mm, D700, f/11 @ 4 seconds

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
May 5, 2008
Messages
123
Location
USA
Very nice!

I certainly will be keeping my 17-35. It's a great lens on DX that has become an amazing lens once again on my D700.
 
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Messages
7,892
Location
East TN
Well, at least it is an average lens Dave, I mean no nano coating, no VR, slow 2.8 speed. The results are in keeping with the fact that I am talking crazy. I can't keep going and keep a straight face, I love this lens, always have, always will. These are slightly above average Where slightly = kick ******** lol.

Wow, these are gorgeous, congrats on a job extremely well done! I do own the 14-24, and while it's an amazing lens, the 17-35 is going absolutely nowhere. In fact, I thought so much of one that as it was aging, I sold it on the cheap (considering) and updated when a deal presented itself for a nearly new one. It was a win win at the time for me and Jonathan. He knew he was getting a lens with some age, but since may have sold it himself, I dunno.

Anyway, mine's a KEEEEPER!

Doug
 
Joined
Feb 21, 2006
Messages
1,379
Location
Cambridge (the UK version!)
Nice shots!

I recently did a switch from the 14-24 to the 17-35 for the reason shown in your shots - the ability to use creative filters.

Very nice work there!

I'm *really* pleased with the 17-35 on my D700, I absolutely love this lens, and while the Nikkor 14-24 is sensationally good optically, I am glad I made the change.
 
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
93
Location
Vancouver, Canada
I'm more than happy with my 17-55mm DX, but will definitely be switching over to the 17-35mm when I enter the FX realm.

Great, breath-taking images!
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2005
Messages
14,973
Location
Los Angeles, USA
If I shot mainly landscape and actually babied my equipment better, I'd rather get a 14-24. Realistically, I'm always grinding away taking photos and the 17-35 is a much better field lens and is the best FX/DX cross over 2.8 option currently.
 
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
68
Location
Ohio
The 17-35 is a lens I don't see myself parting with anytime soon. I *may* consider going for the 24-70 to replace the 28-70 but the 17-35 is one of my fav lenses.
 
Joined
May 23, 2006
Messages
633
The 14-24 is tough on landscape, not being able to use an ND or GND doesn't make it practical for all purposes, especially in shots like the one above.

If I shot mainly landscape and actually babied my equipment better, I'd rather get a 14-24. Realistically, I'm always grinding away taking photos and the 17-35 is a much better field lens and is the best FX/DX cross over 2.8 option currently.
 
Joined
May 7, 2005
Messages
2,369
Location
Eden, NY
So what's the 14-24 useful for? They should of just updated the 17-35! :smile:
I know you put that smiley there for a reason but just to clarify for others....the 17-35 is a great lens but the 14-24 is a fantastic lens. The 14-24 is killer sharp and that last 3mm makes a huge difference. :wink:
 
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
1,027
Location
Annandale, VA
So what's the 14-24 useful for? They should of just updated the 17-35! :smile:
The ultra-wides can be misused for landscape. Here's an example of how NOT to use it..and this is at 22mm with a D3 ( equivalent to roughly a 15mm with a D300). I backed it off from the original 14mm because there was soooo much water and sky and still it's wrong. :redface:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Here's an excellent treatise on HOW to use them. It's by Ken Rockwell. Some of his opinions about the trade and new technology are arguable, but this particular one is full of valuable information. Look at the section titled "Get Close!" I need lots of work with this type lens.
 
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
10,303
Location
Holyoke, MA USA
The 18-35 came along as a mate to the 35-70 and other 35+ zooms....back in the day without computers when about 2:1 was all they could design into a decent zoom. 35mm became known as "moderate wide" and normally all needed.

Later on, 28mm became an achievable "lower-end" for 3:1 range zooms, and became desireable as "normal wide".

Nowadays, 24mm zooms are achieveable and photographers have become more enamored with wide angle, so this "extra-wide" focal length has become the most sought-after bottom for wide-zooms, and therefore the desireable upper-limit to "super-wide-zooms".

It's pretty much as simple as that. 24+'s are designed now because the can be. And the restricted zoom range has been pushed down to the "super-wide" range where quality is harder to achieve.
 
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
4,519
Location
Suwanee, GA
I rented the D700 and 17-35 when I traveled to take pictures of my new nephew last month. It is a GREAT combo. I am renting the same combo for an indoor wedding in November (that won't allow me to use any flash) and hopefully I'll have a D700 by then so I can shoot with 2 of them!
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom