Amen...
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Agreed. This Nikon stuff is pretty darn nice.
It is refreshing to hear good news about a camera system and especially at the wide end - Kudos to Nikon for this. You have to bet that this cannot go unnoticed in the Canon camp and they will have to counter with something. Hopefully all of this will just be good for the users. Now Leica needs to be listening and learning here and when they release the R10 (or other) it will need to be stellar. Let's see what they can do.
rayyan
Well-known member
Hi Mitch,
I have used the 17-35,17-55,28-70,12-24,70-200,85/1.4 extensively on the
d70/s,and the d200. Now have the d300 and also the 24-70.
I have the zfs also..just to make it clear i do not find any difference between the zf 50/1.4 and the nikkor, except the price and weight.
The one zf lens that i use a lot is the zf 100/2 makro....superb.
I have found that on the crop sensor and for close shooting e.g street
the 17-55 is a better performer. same goes for the 17-55 at 2.8 re: the 17-35. The 17-55 is a stellar lens ( there are some sample variations as there
were with my 17-35 ). closed down past 5.6 the 17-35 is unbeatable for
near and far.
I put the 14-24 on my d300..scared me.the size and weight. besides i use
wide for landscapes and a polarizer is a must for me or a nd. no chance right now with the 14-24.
I am using the 24-70 on my d300..it is exquisite, blindingly fast af,close close focus capability. it is going to be a legend of a lens.
My general combination when i travel is the 17-55 + 85/1.4 + 50/1.4
or 28/1.4,50/1.4 and the 85/1.4
I did most of scandinavia last year with just my d200 + 20/2.8 and the
50/1.4
And No, the 24-70 is not an overkill for the d300.
regards.
I have used the 17-35,17-55,28-70,12-24,70-200,85/1.4 extensively on the
d70/s,and the d200. Now have the d300 and also the 24-70.
I have the zfs also..just to make it clear i do not find any difference between the zf 50/1.4 and the nikkor, except the price and weight.
The one zf lens that i use a lot is the zf 100/2 makro....superb.
I have found that on the crop sensor and for close shooting e.g street
the 17-55 is a better performer. same goes for the 17-55 at 2.8 re: the 17-35. The 17-55 is a stellar lens ( there are some sample variations as there
were with my 17-35 ). closed down past 5.6 the 17-35 is unbeatable for
near and far.
I put the 14-24 on my d300..scared me.the size and weight. besides i use
wide for landscapes and a polarizer is a must for me or a nd. no chance right now with the 14-24.
I am using the 24-70 on my d300..it is exquisite, blindingly fast af,close close focus capability. it is going to be a legend of a lens.
My general combination when i travel is the 17-55 + 85/1.4 + 50/1.4
or 28/1.4,50/1.4 and the 85/1.4
I did most of scandinavia last year with just my d200 + 20/2.8 and the
50/1.4
And No, the 24-70 is not an overkill for the d300.
regards.
M
Mitch Alland
Guest
Rayyan, you don't state the reason for for which you think that the 17-55mm is better than the 17-35mm — and reading Thom Hogan's reviews, which are generally quite good, I get the opposite impressions. You may be right, but can you document this in how the 17-55 is better?
—Mitch/Tsumeb
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/
rayyan
Well-known member
Mitch, having used both on a cropped sensor ( d70,d200,d300 ), the 17-55 is
sharp at 2.8 at close quarters. It maintains this sharpness at all fl.
The 17-35 was designed for the film system and as a wide angle for landscapes ( primarily i think ) as beyond about 5.6 it becomes stellar
on my digital nikons. at f8 it is at its best.
The 17-35 is not a bokeh champion either.
OTOH, the 17-55 represents for the croppes sensors what the 28-70
represented for film. it is primarily a pj/event lens with excellent
resolution close and medium and falls off somewhat at infinity. f8 is no better than f5.6 ( peaking for me ).
However for street shooting in low light the 2.8 is perfectly usable with
very good oof areas. it maintains this upto 6.3 - 8.
The 17-35 has very good flare control whereas the 17-55 hates bright
light sources in the frame or strong backlighting cif 17-35.
these nuances have however not deterred me from keeping it on my d300
when i just to have one lens. pair it with a 85/1.4 and you can go round the
globe...which is exactly what i have done ( 1/4 of the globe to be exact!)
besides makes an excellent portrait/fashion lens.
regards.
p.s the 17-55 with its shade is a monstrous enough to frighten little kids away, besides it extends while zooming. the 17-35
does not. Best is try both on your d300 and make the decision.
sharp at 2.8 at close quarters. It maintains this sharpness at all fl.
The 17-35 was designed for the film system and as a wide angle for landscapes ( primarily i think ) as beyond about 5.6 it becomes stellar
on my digital nikons. at f8 it is at its best.
The 17-35 is not a bokeh champion either.
OTOH, the 17-55 represents for the croppes sensors what the 28-70
represented for film. it is primarily a pj/event lens with excellent
resolution close and medium and falls off somewhat at infinity. f8 is no better than f5.6 ( peaking for me ).
However for street shooting in low light the 2.8 is perfectly usable with
very good oof areas. it maintains this upto 6.3 - 8.
The 17-35 has very good flare control whereas the 17-55 hates bright
light sources in the frame or strong backlighting cif 17-35.
these nuances have however not deterred me from keeping it on my d300
when i just to have one lens. pair it with a 85/1.4 and you can go round the
globe...which is exactly what i have done ( 1/4 of the globe to be exact!)
besides makes an excellent portrait/fashion lens.
regards.
p.s the 17-55 with its shade is a monstrous enough to frighten little kids away, besides it extends while zooming. the 17-35
does not. Best is try both on your d300 and make the decision.
Last edited:
I have not tried the 17-35, but did own the 17-55 when I had the D200.
The 17-55 lasted about 6 months before I sold. This could have been sample variation, however I was not impressed in the least.
The lens was only OK on sharpness, and just never impressed me. Virtually everything I shot with it was flat, only ok on sharpness/detail, plus the wide end was distortion problematic.
Another issue now is that it is DX only, which is a decision factor if you ever think about going FF in the future.
Just my $.02.
Best,
Ray
The 17-55 lasted about 6 months before I sold. This could have been sample variation, however I was not impressed in the least.
The lens was only OK on sharpness, and just never impressed me. Virtually everything I shot with it was flat, only ok on sharpness/detail, plus the wide end was distortion problematic.
Another issue now is that it is DX only, which is a decision factor if you ever think about going FF in the future.
Just my $.02.
Best,
Ray
M
Mitch Alland
Guest
kit laughlin
Subscriber Member
I had the 17-55/2.8 on a number of Nikon bodies too, and like Ray, I was very underwhelmed by this huge lens, IQ-wise. The 24–70? That's a whole other ball game. I think the 17–35 will be my next purchase, too.
M
Mitch Alland
Guest
I took your advice and my wife bought the TC 1.4 at a dealer in Washington, DC and brought it to Namibia: the trouble was that it turned out to be defective — there was something loose in it — and it did not couple everything properly so that the image through the viewfinder was so dark it looked like f/22 rather than f/4 and the mirror locked up every time I tried to take a shot. It was unfortunate because the TC would have been useful. The lesson is that it's best to try everything out at the store when buying.
—Mitch/Bangkok
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/