Nikon 17-35

[Kelpfish 15]

Anybody using the nice Nikon 17-35 on their cropped frame cameras and if so are you happy? IS IT WORTH THE MONEY for, say, a D100 if I am already shooting the Nikon 12-24? What will it get me that the 12-24 won't? Any advice is helpful. I have seen so many good images with this lens that I am considering a capital purchase that my wife won't know about.

 

Joe

[james 0]

Hi Joe,

 

Personally, I don't see the point. The AF-S 17-35 is so expensive because it's an extremely sharp wide zoom. For a cropped sensor camera, you don't need the extremely sharp corners because they won't appear in the frame. I used it on the FF Kodak as it was an absolute requirement for the FF sensor.

 

You could save some money and get a sharp fast zoom by another vendor instead and get the same performance. I'd look at a Tokina or Sigma 17-35. Just make sure it's got an AF-S type motor.

 

Other people who have used the Nikon will probably disagree w/ me because it's just such a nice lens and so dang satisfying to use. But is it worth spending $1,500 when you'll only be shooting throug the center? Nope.

 

Cheers

James

[Kelpfish 15]

James,

 

Thanks for the freedback. I kinda knew that was the case, but wanted to hear from anyone who can validate a critical quality I might yield from this lens that I cannot get from my 12-24.

 

Thanks.

 

Joe

[jbonehoss 0]

I bought a used one for $800 and have it on my D70s all the time. I love it and would buy it again in a second. At the same time I agree with James that a $1500 price tag would be too much for the return on the cropped sensor.

[kdietz 0]

I just bought one for my D200 for topside work. I will continue to use the 10.5mm, 12-24mm or Sigma 15 underwater.

 

I think the fast and extremely sharp 2.8 glass with get a lot of use as a walk around lens.

 

Karl

[james 0]

I agree - it's a fabulous lens with fast AF, good corner sharpness, and F2.8. Not to mention build quality is tank-like. But man that thing is heavy and expensive...:-) Look on the bright side - at least it has an aperture ring :-)

 

Karl, in other news, Sarah got 1st in the Novice comp last night! woohoo!

 

Cheers

James

[kdietz 0]

WTG Sarah.....two thumbs up

[james 0]

And Ken and Mary Lou kicked our butts in the Advanced comp.

 

Cheers

James

[Alex_Mustard 0]

I agree with James that this lens is hard to justify for a cropped sensor body, where the excellent 17-55mm is more versatile. Also in the places I usually dive this lens ona DX body doesn't cover a particularly useful range (although I expect it to be my main lens on my forthcoming Bahamas trip).

 

I got mine in 1999, I think, and it is a lens that I plan to never sell. It is that sort of purchase.

 

Many quote this a Nikon's finest lens, but be careful when buying second hand as this lens was/is popular with photojournalists and there some heavily beaten up examples out there. If you get a second hand one it may well be worth paying for a Nikon service?

 

The lens is very sharp, but it is the rich colours it captures that always marks it out for me. I can instantly see the difference in my pictures when I use this lens. It is a class apart from the 12-24mm and the 18-35mm nikkors and you see it in the photos. It is why I have never bought a 12-24mm.

 

But I don't think that this is a lens that finds too many subjects underwater. And I use is sparingly. Of the 200 pictures in The Art of Diving I took 12 with this lens. I took over 100 with the 10.5 or 16mm.

 

Alex

 

p.s. congrats Sarah on your victory.

[Alex_Mustard 0]

Here are a few pictures taken with the 17-35mm and D2X - all in the Maldives:

 

 

 

 

 

Alex

[pmooney 6]

I'm with Alex - this a serious lens for sharking, especially in water that you see more than 2 feet. It is without doubt the lens that has been my most productive sharky lense for a while. Sharp as a tack everytime.

[scorpio_fish 5]

I love this lens, but I'm not sure I would buy it if I already had the 12-24mm. I've had mine for quite some time starting with film. Great lens.

 

I would be more tempted to buy the 17-55mm if I already had the 12-24mm. Not quite the same, but close.

[Photobeat 0]

The 17-55DX is a really nice lens - I think of it in the same class as the 80-200 2.8. On land and underwater it is amazing. The perfect compliment to the 10.5. It is almost like a 16mm not far away, and almost like a 60 although not a macro. Versitile and sharp and decent at 2.8. Better choice I think than the 17-35mm.

 

10.5 is really killer and half the cost just so ya know.

 

Good luck

 

-Steve

[NWDiver 42]

Joe,

 

Have to say it is the lens of choice for me. It was the main lens I used with the GWs and was on the camera majority of the time in Thailand. It's twisted logic but I like it so much I am tempted to sell it and buy the 17-55 if I can be sure to make it work with my Aquatica housing/ports.

[Starbuck 0]

I was also thinking of purchasing the 17-35 but it seems everyone is saying the 17-55 dx for a d70 / d2x may be the better choice and still offer the same quality. Any disadvantages of 17-55dx compared to the 17-35?

 

thanks,

 

M.

[jcclink 8]

I'm still looking for the optimum setup for the 17-55 in my Nexus D70 housing. The 170 port, 40mm extension ring & +4 diopter isn't giving sharp results so far. Will try a +2 next weekend. Any other suggestions greatly appreciated. Great lens for topside thou.

 

Starbuck - how's the iTTL converter working out for you? I'm thinking about having it installed also. Who did your installation?

[Starbuck 0]

Hi Jcclink -

 

Thanks for that info on the 17-55 and nexus housing Woody stated +3 or 4 diopter and 50 or 60mm extension...Have you tried that combo?

 

iTTl converter from Matthias worked well. All of our macro with d70 from Bali used this setup. The battery in controller stopped after 1 week..not sure if we were doing something woring... uses little watch battery...just bring extra ones. I would highly recommend Ryan from Reef Photo to do the conversion if you are not handy with solder gun and volt meter, etc. The ittl controller will work with Inon or Ike strobes.

 

M.

[jcclink 8]

Haven't tried a longer extension ring yet. I now have 20mm & 40mm rings, so I can try the 17-55 with a 60 extension next weekend. Also trying to tweak the 12-24 - testing a 20mm ring vs 40mm (no diopter). The entrance pupil of the 12-24 seems to be about 20mm closer to the flange than the 17-55mm. Hope I find a good combination of parts.

[Starbuck 0]

jcclink -

 

I never really got 12-24 working well in my Nexus housings...very unhappy with results.. The 18-70 is about the only zoom Ive tried with success.. I know others have done well with 12-24 and I've been looking for another zoom with better quality than the 18-70..hence the possible 17-55dx purchase.

 

M.

[jcclink 8]

starbuck -

I've been curious how others have configured the 12-24 on Nexus. Hoping the shorter extension will help. Some may be using the larger dome - heard that works better (sharper edges). Nexus has a new glass dome that was made for the 12-24, but from what little I've heard it isn't doing the job either. I heard from a reliable source that this new dome with the 18mm lens however works great. May go with that if I can't do better with the 12-24.

[frogfish 5]

I guess I should weigh in on the 17-35. With the Fuji S2, I relied mainly on 12-24 mm and 10.5 for wide-angle underwater, and used the l17-35 mainly for subjects too shy to approach closely with the wider lenses, such as sharks.

 

With the D2X, however, I believe I can see a perceptible difference in the quality of images (sharpness, color punch) between the 12-24 and 17-35 zooms even with the reduced frame format. I suppose it's possible that I could be imaging this. I haven't figured out a good way to test it, but the perception that the 17-35 is producing better images is powerful enough for me that I don't think I'll bother.

 

So on my first liveaboard outing using the D2X, I ended up using the 17-35 mm a lot more underwater than I ever had before. Admittedly the wide end isn't that wide, but with reasonable viz this lens can take lovely wide angle shots. It is also clearly superior for subjects that can't be approached closely, shooting at the longer end of the lens through a dome .

 

I purchased my 17-35 about five years ago for use with a full-frame film SLR, and a surprising proportion of my best (in my view) topside photos have been taken with it. honestly don't know if I'd purchase such an expensive lens again ow, but I do know that I'm using this lens a lot more now (above and under water) with the D2X than I ever did when I was shooting the S2. And I certainly don't want to sell it.

 

Frogfish

[Starbuck 0]

Robert-

 

Thanks for posting that info. Do you have any of the 17-35 photos on your website? I saw a alot taken taken with the 12-24 from Indonesia..

 

Does anyone feel the 17-55x would be BETTER than the 17-35?

 

M.

[frogfish 5]

Starbuck,

 

I don't have anything taken with the D2X on my website, or anything less than a year old for that matter. But I've been working on reorganizing images these past couple of weeks, so I hope that may change.

 

But here's an underwater shot from R4 taken with the 17-35 mm that I liked, and that I don't think I could have taken with the 12-24, certainly not with the 10.5. This was shot under a table coral (which is partly visible), at the long (35) end of the lens. The equivalent focal length for a full-frame camera would be about 50 mm. I've never used the 17-55 above water or under, but as far as shooting underwater through a dome, I don't see much point in trying to go much longer than this.

 

Exposure was 1/80 at f/3.2, twin inon strobes. ACR color temp was 8100 K (tint +80), no exposure adjustment in ACR.

 

Compressing this image into a small jpeg doesn't really show what I like most about the shot, so I've made a quick blow up of a piece of the original raw file, with just a quick curve and some sharpeningl, which I'll probably have to attach to a second post.

 

Frogfish

[frogfish 5]

Here's the blow-up of previous image. It's very obvious here that the focus locked onto the Polycarpa aurata ascidians - the mouth and eye of the main subject semicircular angel are quite soft.

Frogfish

[Starbuck 0]

Robert-

 

Thanks for posting that image...the colors are very nice. I think Im going to just bite the bullet and buy the 17-35 for an upcoming trip to Guadalupe.

 

M.