Is AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8D popular?

[jpgutierrez18]

I use this lens the most, both in DX and filmbodies.

Popular? Yes. The ability to use filter attachments on this UWA (in film/FX) lens is priceless.

 

[desking]

I use this lens the most, both in DX and filmbodies.

Popular? Yes. The ability to use filter attachments on this UWA (in film/FX) lens is priceless.

Hi,

what is the camera and lens you got?

 

[jpgutierrez18]

Hi,

what is the camera and lens you got?

You were asking about the 17-35 f2.8 right? i use the lens on D70s and F-801.

 

[garagez]

popular i'm not sure,,,,
for me to pair up wit my S5, D2h, and F801s ....very good enuff...at least for me

cheers

 

[siriuslim]

I have used this lens on film, DX, FX camera. Its a great optics, great build and produce great results. Whether is it popular, it really depends on individual preference.

 

[Blur Shadow]

It is an excellent lens. I have used it on a limited occasion, and it is one of the best lenses that I've ever used. This lens belonged to the older "trinity" series of Nikon lenses.

 

[Big Kahuna]

very nice web bro.
u must be a professional.

Confirm pro...very beautiful photos....love all the shots :thumbsup::lovegrin:

 

[imouyang]

I personally feel that 17-35 is easier to maintain than 14-24...

 

[moby]

Read on Kenrockwell webby that this lens maybe discontinued by Nikon very soon. So those who want it should get is because if the new ones come with the SWM, then reliability will not be as good as the current one since the current lens is more mechanical and dont have SWM which is prone to breakdown.

However, I am not sure when i will be moving on the FX and if that is the case, the 17-35 will be like a mid angle lens on my DX camera. If so, should those who are using DX purchase the Tokina 11 - 16 mm f/2.8 which has also garnered fantastic reviews and can be considered a UWA on a DX camera?

Would like to hear opinions on this one.

So in summary, it is Nikon 17 - 35 mm versus Tokina 11 - 16 mm for a Dx camera and trying to achieve UWA perspective.

 

[Henessy]

Read on Kenrockwell webby that this lens maybe discontinued by Nikon very soon. So those who want it should get is because if the new ones come with the SWM, then reliability will not be as good as the current one since the current lens is more mechanical and dont have SWM which is prone to breakdown.

However, I am not sure when i will be moving on the FX and if that is the case, the 17-35 will be like a mid angle lens on my DX camera. If so, should those who are using DX purchase the Tokina 11 - 16 mm f/2.8 which has also garnered fantastic reviews and can be considered a UWA on a DX camera?

Would like to hear opinions on this one.

So in summary, it is Nikon 17 - 35 mm versus Tokina 11 - 16 mm for a Dx camera and trying to achieve UWA perspective.

I thought the 17-35mm f2.8 uses AFS all the time?

 

[mcn]

may be "moby" can tell us something we dont know :dunno:

 

[rexlim]

:bsmilie: 17-35 all AF-S mah...

 

[moby]

Ok, my error, all 17-35 are AF-S.

But anyway, I am too lazy to find the posting by Kenrockwell advising to buy this version of the 17-35 before it discontinues.

At the end, I just want to know if a person shooting DX would be better off using the tokina 11 - 16 mm or the 17 - 35 mm.

 

[Lumiere]

I thought the 17-35mm f2.8 uses AFS all the time?

thanks for all the compliments on my photos...and if i am not wrong 17-35mm f2.8 is the only AF-S with an aperture ring.

And if Nikon is to discontinue this model, there will not be a replacement model in this range as they have a range of 14mm to 200mm covered with the new trinity.

Although I have handled and used the 14-24mm for my work but somehow I don't feel as comfortable as a 17-35mm. one main reason is the protruding front element. 2nd is the fact that at 24mm there is not enuff reach for me.

at 17-35mm my other camera can comfortable mount a 50mm or 85mm
with 2nd set options of 50mm with 85mm or 105mm

all these are made with reference only on an FX body for Wedding day photography. What i'm trying to show is that this lens is good if you don't need the 14mm and at 24mm its too short, and you swear by filters.

I'm am sure i'll get a 2nd one to keep if Nikon decided to discontinue this 17-35mm f2.8

thanks for reading

 

[mcn]

At the end, I just want to know if a person shooting DX would be better off using the tokina 11 - 16 mm or the 17 - 35 mm.

i wud think (think only, cos i no money to buy it) the nikon 17-55mm wud be better

same wide, but more reach ... n still f2.8

why say u ?

 

[daftone]

I didnt know there was an AF-d version of the 17-35/2.8.

17-35 and 18-35 were UWAs way back in the film days. 11-16 is also an UWA but for the DX as it is an effective 16.5-24 to duplicate the 17-35 range on a DX sensor camera. You cant compare the 2 on a DX cameras as the 17-35 would have a handicap in terms of its focal length. It will become an a 25.5-52.5mm lens for your DX camera and the portion of the lens it uses would be different.

 

[moby]

Personally i think that if one is trying to achieve some form of UWA on a DX cam, then the tokina 11 - 16 mm would be the lens of choice given that it is also f/2.8 and of good optics

However, the TS was wondering why the popularity of the 17 - 35 mm. And as far as i can tell, it is probably because of the superior optics.

Dollar for dollar and also in terms of achieving UWA on DX, I would think that the 11 - 16 is much better than the 17 - 35. But then, mine is just a conjucture as it is not based on personal experience.

Hmmm, time to head to HK to get myself a 11 - 16 mm.

 

[mcn]

Hmmm, time to head to HK to get myself a 11 - 16 mm.

why not buy locally ???

tk foto (or photo) in beach is sole agent for tokina

 

[Henessy]

Has it been official that Nikon will discontinue the AFS 17-35mm f2.8?

 

[Henessy]

I personally feel that 17-35 is easier to maintain than 14-24...

thanks for all the compliments on my photos...and if i am not wrong 17-35mm f2.8 is the only AF-S with an aperture ring.

And if Nikon is to discontinue this model, there will not be a replacement model in this range as they have a range of 14mm to 200mm covered with the new trinity.

Although I have handled and used the 14-24mm for my work but somehow I don't feel as comfortable as a 17-35mm. one main reason is the protruding front element. 2nd is the fact that at 24mm there is not enuff reach for me.

at 17-35mm my other camera can comfortable mount a 50mm or 85mm
with 2nd set options of 50mm with 85mm or 105mm

all these are made with reference only on an FX body for Wedding day photography. What i'm trying to show is that this lens is good if you don't need the 14mm and at 24mm its too short, and you swear by filters.

I'm am sure i'll get a 2nd one to keep if Nikon decided to discontinue this 17-35mm f2.8

thanks for reading

Actually by the end of the day, we all might be forced to get the 14-24 after our 17-35mm AFS motor give way and Nikon does not have a replacement motor for that.