Nikon Wide Angle Lens

[tsdh]

Originally posted by ckiang
Actually, many said the optical performance of the 20-35/2.8 is superior to that of the 17-35, but mininum focussing distance of the 20-35 is not that close.
Regards
CK

Well, I can't test the 17-35 myself, can only dream of its $$$
So far, I can only compare the printed result taken by somebody else. In my opinion, both are close (provided both pictures were taken at same focal length and same aperture, don't compare a picture taken at 17mm with the other at 20mm), but not as extra ordinary as voiced by many reviewers.
My Nikkor 24/2.8 still one notch superior.

 

[ckiang]

Originally posted by tsdh

Well, I can't test the 17-35 myself, can only dream of its $$$
So far, I can only compare the printed result taken by somebody else. In my opinion, both are close (provided both pictures were taken at same focal length and same aperture, don't compare a picture taken at 17mm with the other at 20mm), but not as extra ordinary as voiced by many reviewers.
My Nikkor 24/2.8 still one notch superior.

Prime lens wat!

Regards
CK

 

[tsdh]

Originally posted by ckiang
Prime lens wat!
Regards
CK

yeah, it is prime ... cost less than one fifth of the 17-35, lighter, smaller, and giving better result. So in the mean time, I can live with it

 

[traveler]

Originally posted by tsdh

So far I know that there're only three WA zooms from Nikon:
17-35/2.8
20-35/2.8
18-35/3.5-4.5
(any other else I miss out?)

.

What abt the 25-50/4 MF? Heard of great reviews but very hard to find since it's long been discountinued.

 

[tsdh]

Originally posted by traveler
What abt the 25-50/4 MF? Heard of great reviews but very hard to find since it's long been discountinued.

don't know, never heard about it.
but we're talking about WA zoom only, which never reach normal focal length, isn't it :dunno:
started wider than 24mm and stop before reaching 50mm.