Nikon 17-35 f2.8 quiry

[daredevil123]

imho 1 is dx lens theother is fx lens. cant compare like this. if u get the 17-35 f/2.8, when u change to fx body, you can still use back the lens. but not for the 17-55 f/2.8 dx lens. so depreciation is 'relative'. if u have no plans for fx body, then it make senses.

Depreciation will happen irregardless if you switch to FX later or not. In the end, the image matter more. Having a range that works better matters more. If you are so sensitive to depreciation, you can buy a used 17-55 and sell it when switched to FX. I am sure the depreciation is minimal as well. And also, the more you use a lens, the more wear and tear you will get. By the time TS decides to go to FX, the lens may be very well used, and some parts, eg AF-S motor, may fail. And the 17-35 is quite infamous for having a higher AF-S failure rate.

There are other considerations as well. 17-35 is using a HB-23 lens hood. It is like most UWA lens hood, where it is very short and very wide. For FX it is just perfect. For DX, you will not have enough shade from the sun at many angles and may run into flare problems more. Of course, a shorter lens hood means, less protection as well.

Before the 17-55 was released, a lot of people used the 17-35 on DX cams. This is simply because there was no other alternative. After the 17-55 was released, most people went 17-55. Which is also why the popularity of the 17-35 waned quite a bit. It is only when FX came back into the picture, the 17-35 started picking up again. But its popularity has waned again since the coming of 14-24 and 16-35. Just look at the UWA options for FX now, there are quite a lot on the market. Apart from the 2 I mentioned, there are Toki 16-28/2.8, 17-35/4, and Sig 12-24...

Live in the now. Use what is the best for your current camera. By the time you move to FX, newer and better lenses may have been released and you might want to sell it anyway.

 

[nickzkcin]

There are other considerations as well. 17-35 is using a HB-23 lens hood. It is like most UWA lens hood, where it is very short and very wide. For FX it is just perfect. For DX, you will not have enough shade from the sun at many angles.

First I've heard of this. on a DX camera, you're using the center portion of the 17-35mm lens. Assuming the logic of 'not having enough shade', if you swap back to FX, wouldn't the center of the FX image be also subject to this 'not enough shade'?

I understand the use of a lens hood. I don't understand how the petal hood would be insufficient for DX. If anything, it'd still guard from internal reflection.

Could you elaborate a little more as to this? Thanks.

edit: I agree with going with the 17-55 over the 17-35 for DX. Depreciation will happen to either lens.

 

[daredevil123]

First I've heard of this. on a DX camera, you're using the center portion of the 17-35mm lens. Assuming the logic of 'not having enough shade', if you swap back to FX, wouldn't the center of the FX image be also subject to this 'not enough shade'?

I understand the use of a lens hood. I don't understand how the petal hood would be insufficient for DX. If anything, it'd still guard from diffraction.

Simple, on FX, it is a UWA, your angle of FOV is bigger, you see more in the frame. For more shooters, we know having a very wide angle has its costs in flare at times. On DX, you are getting penalized with more possibility of flare, even when you FOV is smaller. why? because the hood is shorter. It is basic physics. That is also why, on some lenses, the manufacturers provide hood extensions for folks on cropped sensor cameras. Just look at Sigma 70-200 OS, and 85/1.4.

and FYI hood does not do anything for diffraction. Lens hood is good protection from knocks, bumps and greasy kids' fingers though.

 

[GReddyZC76]

yes agree. depreciation happen to everything (prehaps only property is exceptional), and hence imho, no need to bring 'depreciation' to the picture.
actually as you adviced earlier in other thread, an fx uwa lens doesnt justify on a dx body., which i was quite enlightened.
depends on what the TS is looking for?

 

[nickzkcin]

Yup, got the wrong word, I meant internal reflection.

The FOV argument is somewhat flawed in that in the same conditions, the DX image produced will just be the center crop of the FX image, just enlarged. My point is if the image is going to flare, it will happen regardless(due to the physics of the incident light rays). DX will accentuate the size of the lens flare, but this does not mean the same FX image won't have it given the same conditions, it'll just be smaller. The same lens hood should protect the lens from flaring.


I was under the impression that the hood extensions were just for extra protection. Also the HB-23 is not unique to FX lenses.

 

[daredevil123]

Yup, got the wrong word, I meant internal reflection.

The FOV argument is somewhat flawed in that in the same conditions, the DX image produced will just be the center crop of the FX image, just enlarged. My point is if the image is going to flare, it will happen regardless(due to the physics of the incident light rays). DX will accentuate the size of the lens flare, but this does not mean the same FX image won't have it given the same conditions, it'll just be smaller. The same lens hood should protect the lens from flaring.


I was under the impression that the hood extensions were just for extra protection. Also the HB-23 is not unique to FX lenses.

The wider FOV will make it look smaller. for one.

The other thing is, for the same FOV, on DX, if you use 17-55, you do not get lens flare, vs if you use 17-35 you get lens flare... the advantage is obvious. This is especially true if you have the sun just right outside the FOV.

For FX, the same FOV will be 24-70, and you will not get lens flare, because the hood is big too.

For the same wide FOV, DX or FX, with UWA, you will get lens flare irregardless, and have to move the angle to best reduce it.

So if you cannot grasp the the concept of simple physics, nothing more I can say.

I am speaking from experience since I have personally run into problems with a FX UWA on a DX cam, and in switching lens back to a standard zoom in the same situation, the problem is gone. Similarly, since I have 2 bodies with me at that time, a D300s and a D700, I used the same UWA lens on the FX body in the same condition but I zoom in to get the same FOV, no problems whatsoever, go figure. I think, instead of arguing about concept here, it is better you go try it out and share your experiences. That will be a little more accurate than conjecture.

 

[daredevil123]

I was under the impression that the hood extensions were just for extra protection. Also the HB-23 is not unique to FX lenses.

If you have actually seen the hood extensions that came with the sigma 85/1.4 and the 70-200 OS, you will know they are not meant for extra protection. They are meant to make sure the hood is longer to prevent flaring on a crop sensor body.

 

[nickzkcin]

The wider FOV will make it look smaller. for one.

The other thing is, for the same FOV, on DX, if you use 17-55, you do not get lens flare, vs if you use 17-35 you get lens flare... the advantage is obvious. This is especially true if you have the sun just right outside the FOV.

For FX, the same FOV will be 24-70, and you will not get lens flare, because the hood is big too.

For the same wide FOV, DX or FX, with UWA, you will get lens flare irregardless, and have to move the angle to best reduce it.

So if you cannot grasp the the concept of simple physics, nothing more I can say.

I am speaking from experience since I have personally run into problems with a FX UWA on a DX cam, and in switching lens back to a standard zoom in the same situation, the problem is gone. Similarly, since I have 2 bodies with me at that time, a D300s and a D700, I used the same UWA lens on the FX body in the same condition but I zoom in to get the same FOV, no problems whatsoever, go figure. I think, instead of arguing about concept here, it is better you go try it out and share your experiences. That will be a little more accurate than conjecture.

This is not a valid comparison as you are comparing the 17-35mm to the 17-55mm. Lenses are built differently, flaring can occur in one lens and be absent in the other. I'm talking about using the same lens. You have not given a proper physics explanation other than mentioning the word. No need to be condescending. I'll put it as simple as possible for you. Using the 17-35mm and only the 17-35mm. At 17mm, f/2.8. With both a D300s and a D700. If you are comparing it with 17mm on the DX and 26mm on the FX, fair enough, I see where we are misunderstanding each other. But that would bring about a new question: What's there to stop the lens from flaring at 17mm on the FX? The same incident rays and same rays from the sun are hitting the same lens. Is the lens hood insufficient at that focal length for FX then?

I'm trying to understand how on the same lens, a DX body will encounter more flaring than a FX body. The same light enters. The same lens hood blocks the same flareinducing light rays. DX uses the center sweet spot. FX uses the entire area. Why would the DX camera have 'not enough shade'. Should I draw this out in the form of a physics question?

Once again, no need to be condescending. I shoot enough on both formats. I am just asking for a simple explanation to understand your claims. In no way did I say 'no you are wrong'. All I have gotten back is 1) FOV. 2) an indirect jab at my understanding of physics. and 3) a misunderstanding.

 

[daredevil123]

This is not a valid comparison as you are comparing the 17-35mm to the 17-55mm. Lenses are built differently, flaring can occur in one lens and be absent in the other. I'm talking about using the same lens. You have not given a proper physics explanation other than mentioning the word. No need to be condescending. I'll put it as simple as possible for you. Using the 17-35mm and only the 17-35mm. At 17mm, f/2.8. With both a D300s and a D700. If you are comparing it with 17mm on the DX and 26mm on the FX, fair enough, I see where we are misunderstanding each other. But that would bring about a new question: What's there to stop the lens from flaring at 17mm on the FX? The same incident rays and same rays from the sun are hitting the same lens. Is the lens hood insufficient at that focal length for FX then?

I'm trying to understand how on the same lens, a DX body will encounter more flaring than a FX body. The same light enters. The same lens hood blocks the same flareinducing light rays. DX uses the center sweet spot. FX uses the entire area. Why would the DX camera have 'not enough shade'. Should I draw this out in the form of a physics question?

Once again, no need to be condescending. I shoot enough on both formats. I am just asking for a simple explanation to understand your claims. In no way did I say 'no you are wrong'. All I have gotten back is 1) FOV. 2) an indirect jab at my understanding of physics. and 3) a misunderstanding.

What was the question in the first place? it is 17-35 vs 17-55 on DX. That was the entire premise of the discussion. If you missed that then you ought to go back and read in context.

On your question on "how on the same lens, a DX body will encounter more flaring than a FX body", that is not what we were talking about. We are talking about how on the same DX body, a 17-35 have more tendency to flare than a 17-55. On the part on lens hoods, if the 17-35 have a deeper and longer lens hood, it will vignette on FX. But will prevent flare better on a DX. That was what I was saying. If you missed that, I encourage you to go back to the previous posts again and understand what is the context.

 

[nickzkcin]

What was the question in the first place? it is 17-35 vs 17-55 on DX. That was the entire premise of the discussion. If you missed that then you ought to go back and read in context.

On your question on "how on the same lens, a DX body will encounter more flaring than a FX body", that is not what we were talking about. We are talking about how on the same DX body, a 17-35 have more tendency to flare than a 17-55. On the part on lens hoods, if the 17-35 have a deeper and longer lens hood, it will vignette on FX. But will prevent flare better on a DX. That was what I was saying. If you missed that, I encourage you to go back to the previous posts again and understand what is the context.

Should I have started a new thread to ask that question then? Because my question was about your below statement

There are other considerations as well. 17-35 is using a HB-23 lens hood. It is like most UWA lens hood, where it is very short and very wide. For FX it is just perfect. For DX, you will not have enough shade from the sun at many angles and may run into flare problems more.

A longer lens hood will definitely vignette on FX, I understand that. Your claim that the HB-23 being insufficient for DX shading is what prompted me to pose my question. I've tried searching extensively on information to back this up, but I've failed. Hope you can help out by clarifying this.

I am asking a new question without referring to the old 17-35 vs 17-55 question. I agree that 17-55 is the way to go if you're using DX. I don't know why there is a need to link context back to it.

The conclusion that I currently draw from this is that the HB-23 is enough for shading from flare on the 17-35mm on DX and should not be a consideration when making the decision. I agree with the rest of your reasons to pick the 17-55 over the 17-35.

I won't pursue this anymore as it seems that I won't get an answer.

 

[daredevil123]

Should I have started a new thread to ask that question then? Because my question was about your below statement


A longer lens hood will definitely vignette on FX, I understand that. Your claim that the HB-23 being insufficient for DX shading is what prompted me to pose my question. I've tried searching extensively on information to back this up, but I've failed. Hope you can help out by clarifying this.

I am asking a new question without referring to the old 17-35 vs 17-55 question. I agree that 17-55 is the way to go if you're using DX. I don't know why there is a need to link context back to it.

The conclusion that I currently draw from this is that the HB-23 is enough for shading from flare on the 17-35mm on DX and should not be a consideration when making the decision. I agree with the rest of your reasons to pick the 17-55 over the 17-35.

I won't pursue this anymore as it seems that I won't get an answer.

I have already told you in post #26. I used a 16-35 on a D300s and it flare till kingdom come. I then fitted a tamron 17-50 and shot at the same FOV and same angle - No issues. I then shot the same scene at the same FOV with a 24-70 on a D700 - No issue. If that is insufficient for you, maybe you should do your own tests. Or you can ignore all this, and continue to believe what you believe.

And did I ever say that HB23 gives more shading for DX than FX? no... but I told you that is what you have to live with due to the wide FOV. It is a compromise. UWA is prone to flares just by virtue of the fact FOV is so wide. So what works for UWA angle on FX, is not the best for standard zoom on DX.

So let me ask you this, a 17-35 with its dedicated hood on DX, and 17-55 with its dedicated hood on DX. Which one has more tendency to flare? And if you refuse to do comparisons, what's there to talk about? Car A is more powerful than Car B, but lets not talk about Car B, and just say if Car A is powerful enough. powerful enough for what? in comparison to what? No point talking about this anymore. Since you are going off on a tangent, and sounds like you just want to pick a fight.

 

[nickzkcin]

And did I ever say that HB23 gives more shading for DX than FX? no...

There are other considerations as well. 17-35 is using a HB-23 lens hood. It is like most UWA lens hood, where it is very short and very wide. For FX it is just perfect. For DX, you will not have enough shade from the sun at many angles and may run into flare problems more.

Of course you didn't, you said exactly the reverse - that the HB-23 gives more shading for FX than DX. I don't care about comparing lenses. I know different lenses flare differently. You seem to be bringing that same topic up over and over. I just want clarification on your above statement. Which to date, I still don't have. Stop putting words into my mouth. Comparisons are done with controlled variables. I'll counter with your analogy. Car A has a V8 engine but running on no petrol, compared to car B with a 4 cylinder with a full tank. You cannot compare that because of physics experiment rules which we've all learned in secondary school. In the case of my question, the comparison is as follows. a) Same lens. b) Same focal length. c) Same aperture. d) Same lens hood. e) Different body. Will flaring occur in one case but not the other? From what I gather from your statement as shown above, you said yes. I want to know why you said yes. You have since brought up arguments for different body + different lens, effectively changing a constant variable. I'm not the one who can't adhere to context. You ramble on but you're not answering the question I'm asking.

I'm now convinced I won't get the answer from you and your statement in the quote is wrong. Last reply from me to DD in this thread. Sorry for derailing.

 

[daredevil123]

Of course you didn't, you said exactly the reverse - that the HB-23 gives more shading for FX than DX.

Did I? please quote and show where I said that?

I said it works for FX because it is a UWA just like how the hood on 11-16 works just as well on a dx. If you want to read it any other way there is nothing I can say more.

You are not looking for an answer. What you are looking for I have no idea.

The fact remains that the 17-35 on a dx will flare a lot more easier than a 17-55 dx. My experiences have proved that to be true. If you want to perform a controlled test and show results otherwise, you are welcome to do so.

 

[GReddyZC76]

:dunno:

 

[Zichar]

Trying to figure out the conversation, not sure why the topic diverged in the middle of it

Using the variables, of same everything but different body - FX and DX, I suppose it is the physics of light flowing in through tubes that explains why a shorter hood provides less protection against flare-causing stray light from the sides

Here's my MS Paint simplified sketch of things, as best as I can do:

DD mentioned Sigma lenses that came in two part hoods for FX and DX. You put on an extension if you were using said lens on a DX body
One of their latest offerings the Sigma 85mm f/1.4, can see from PZ review
Just scroll almost to the bottom of the page:
Sigma AF 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM (DX) - Review / Lab Test Report

Now... that's just from my rudimentary understanding, can someone else confirm what I've written? :embrass::bsmilie:

 

[Zichar]

Oh and Understanding Camera Flare by CC should be useful here:
Understanding Camera Lens Flare

"Lens flare is created when non-image forming light enters the lens and subsequently hits the camera's film or digital sensor."

 

[nickzkcin]

Trying to figure out the conversation, not sure why the topic diverged in the middle of it

Using the variables, of same everything but different body - FX and DX, I suppose it is the physics of light flowing in through tubes that explains why a shorter hood provides less protection against flare-causing stray light from the sides

Here's my MS Paint simplified sketch of things, as best as I can do:

DD mentioned Sigma lenses that came in two part hoods for FX and DX. You put on an extension if you were using said lens on a DX body
One of their latest offerings the Sigma 85mm f/1.4, can see from PZ review
Just scroll almost to the bottom of the page:
Sigma AF 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM (DX) - Review / Lab Test Report

Now... that's just from my rudimentary understanding, can someone else confirm what I've written? :embrass::bsmilie:

Thanks for trying to explain I'll present my counterargument:

I thought of doing a MS paint diagram myself, but there were too many unknowns to get an accurate representation. in your diagrams, the incident rays for both FX and DX are at different angles. This is wrong as the light entering the lens is the same. The larger FOV at the same focal length is due to the exit rays landing on a larger sensor on the FX as compared to the DX. Furthermore, as the same light and same lens are used, the light diagrams should be the same throughout up till the light hits the sensor. Meaning if flaring does not occur at 17mm for FX, it will not occur at 17mm for DX. Comparatively, if flaring does not occur at 35mm for FX, it will not occur at 35mm for DX.
If we extrapolate the focal lengths to have the field of view identical to each other, if flaring does not occur at 35mm on FX, will 24mm on DX run into flaring problems? The lens hood should provide enough protection at FX 24mm, hence DX 24mm should be safe.
By this logic, on the same lens, there is no focal length where DX will have flaring whereas FX will not. I understand fully that different lens work differently and that flaring may occur on one lens and be absent in the other even on the same sensor format.

The reverse should also be true. If flaring does occur at 17mm for FX, it might occur at 17mm on DX(if the flaring occurs within the DX sensor). Another difference is that the flaring will be magnified due to the smaller sensor size of DX resulting in the same image scale as the FX image. The point that I am disputing is the claim that the short lens hood will be perfect for FX cameras, but is too short for DX. I disagree with this. If anything, the shading offered will be the same. Sorry if this is really confusing, but its the best I can do with text.


I understand that a larger lens hood will offer greater protection against flare, but it can only get so big before vignetting will occur. I had stumbled upon this article as well, but its vague in which protection they were referring to. Flare? Or accidental touching of the front elements?

Oh and Understanding Camera Flare by CC should be useful here:
Understanding Camera Lens Flare

"Lens flare is created when non-image forming light enters the lens and subsequently hits the camera's film or digital sensor."

Just expanding and simplifying so its not so confusing, every object is a light source. It does not have to be the sun or a light bulb. If you make a picture of a stapler, the stapler gives off the light for your sensor to capture. That is what is meant by image forming light. Lens flare occurs when a strong secondary source of light enters the lens at a different angle and internal reflection occurs onto the sensor. Lens hoods will prevent this from happening by shading the front element so that the secondary source of light cannot enter it. Its also why the internal part of the lens hood is black, even on Canon white L lenses. Bear in mind that even with a lens hood, if the secondary light source does enter, there will be a chance of flaring.

 

[Zichar]

Rats, I got more than I bargained for! LOL

I drew the diagram that way to account for image forming light (to borrow the term from CC, for the lack of a better one)
Thinking that since only the stuff through the middle will be the ones that form on the sensor

Rehashing the diagram, yes there will still be light coming from the sides for the DX body
Which if it's a DX lens, no problem because the size of the front element (and possible the elements within are similarly specced) and hood, it's all tailored for
But on a FX body will end up as stray light because the front element will still gather it and let it go crazy within because flare reduction properties (coatings, black insides of the barrel) aren't 100% effective (Fig II ... exaggerated, ahem) and there's nowhere for the light to go?

From the CC article, stray light = flare causing = no good, hence hoods to minimise that
Specifically the part about Reducing Flare with Lens Hoods section addresses this

Anyway I drew more ... and I think what you're saying is Fig III?

 

[s1221ljc]

Wah, all the diagrams so complicated arh :bsmilie:

I am adverse to all the technicalities here, but if I may say so, my understanding of what Nickzkcin is trying to say is that the DX diagram should be exactly similar to that of the FX EXCEPT that the sensor is smaller, is cropped (just shade out part of the sensor in Fig 1 for illustration). The focussing plane/area remains the same, provided the lens is at the same distance from the sensor. There is no change to real focal length, perspective, angle of view, if the same lens is used on the different format cameras. Its not like comparing a telephoto against a wide angle lens. The effect is exactly like when we crop a picture, thats all....

 

[daredevil123]

By this logic, on the same lens, there is no focal length where DX will have flaring whereas FX will not. I understand fully that different lens work differently and that flaring may occur on one lens and be absent in the other even on the same sensor format.

The reverse should also be true. If flaring does occur at 17mm for FX, it might occur at 17mm on DX(if the flaring occurs within the DX sensor). Another difference is that the flaring will be magnified due to the smaller sensor size of DX resulting in the same image scale as the FX image. The point that I am disputing is the claim that the short lens hood will be perfect for FX cameras, but is too short for DX. I disagree with this. If anything, the shading offered will be the same. Sorry if this is really confusing, but its the best I can do with text.


I understand that a larger lens hood will offer greater protection against flare, but it can only get so big before vignetting will occur. I had stumbled upon this article as well, but its vague in which protection they were referring to. Flare? Or accidental touching of the front elements?

17-35mm on FX at 17mm, will flare as easy as 17-35mm on DX at 17mm. So what is the difference? The FOV is different. on FX is very very wide. For wideness comes compromise, where the lens hood need to be shorter to avoid vignetting. On DX, you are just penalizing yourself for using the 17-35mm where a 17-55 will do a much better job with flare.

What does this mean in real usage terms? When using FX at 17mm, you may shift your position or angle of view to avoid having the sun in your frame, to avoid flare. On DX, even if you shift the angle of view so that the sun is not in your frame, there is a chance that it will still flare. Because the hood only shades for FX image circle, not for DX image circle. Stray light can still enter the FX image circleand cause reflections in the DX image circle. That is the practical side of it.

Despite nickzkcin's claim, at no point did I say a lens hood on a FX lens will offer MORE shade than when mounted on a DX cam. So I have no idea what he was harping about over and over again like a broken record.

And thanks Zichar for taking the time to draw out the diagrams.