We rely on revenue from ads to pay the bills. Please support our efforts by allowing the ads to show on the Nikon Cafe. Alternatively, consider becoming a site subscriber for $10 per year to remove all ads.
I had this lens some years ago (with my D100).
- very solid build
- very sharp, just about at par with the 17-25 f/2.8 (which I got to replace it)
- I found it to have somewhat more pincushion distortion at the wide end
For me the added 3mm at the wide end was justification to get the 17-35 at the time. I tried them side-by-side and one does appreciate the seemingly little difference of only 3mm (especially with digital).
- if you are OK with the 20mm at the wide end, you will love this excellent lens, which of course can be had much cheaper then the 17-35 or 17-55.
Like Frits, I had a 20-35 a while ago with my first D70. Its build quality was about the best I've seen on a Nikon lens. For me, the 20-35 was a little large and heavy for its limited focal range, so I dropped it in favor of a 17-55 before too long. Its image quality was excellent, but I found myself near the 35mm mark most of the time. Here's a sample, http://GTIkeda.smugmug.com/photos/139495302-O.jpg, albeit taken with some experimental flash settings. You might have to click on the image itself to see the image in its uploaded size and remove the compression artifacts.