17-35mm out of date?

Discussion in 'Nikon FX DSLR' started by davewolfs, Sep 6, 2008.

  1. davewolfs

    davewolfs

    633
    May 23, 2006
    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

    2834423609_a71b606574_o.png

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

    2835263856_be70be6dd2_o.png
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 6, 2008
  2. grepmat

    grepmat

    123
    May 5, 2008
    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.
     
  3. Doug

    Doug

    Jan 17, 2006
    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
     
  4. Dave those images speak volumes for the lens (and the photog, let's not forget that!). Fantastic!
     
  5. 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.
     
  6. kja6

    kja6

    93
    Feb 22, 2008
    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!
     
  7. 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.
     
  8. MrKegFlex

    MrKegFlex

    68
    Nov 23, 2007
    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.
     
  9. davewolfs

    davewolfs

    633
    May 23, 2006
    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.

     
  10. So what's the 14-24 useful for? They should of just updated the 17-35! :smile:
     
  11. davewolfs

    davewolfs

    633
    May 23, 2006
    Images that don't require the use of filters :confused:
     
  12. 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:
     
  13. 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:

    275251775_29dRj-XL.jpg

    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.
     
  14. 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.
     
  15. Fine work Dave- I have been pretty content lately but this is one lens I gould really get after.
     
  16. F15Todd

    F15Todd

    Feb 1, 2005
    Tennessee
    I love my 17-35mm, but it has just recently developed a little motor squeak.
     
  17. Dave

    Dave

    Feb 7, 2007
    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!