Done a lot of research that leads me to believe that the 17-25 is as sharp or almost as sharp as the newer 14-24. Plan to grads and NDs filters with the Cokin holder. 14-24 can be used but appears to be quite problematic to mount the holder or had holding the filters. Any feedback from any users of these lenses for landscape work would be greatly appreciated!
Glen
I use the 17-35 AFS f/2.8 on my D700 with excellent results. I purchased it many years ago to use with my film F5. I hung on to it and when I got the D700 it is now one of my most used lenses. To my eyes it is very sharp when used on the D700 and will take filters, something the 14-24 will not. If you can find one I would recommend it.
Steve
I also use the 17-35. I went through the same dilemma when I got my D700, 17-35 or 14-24. In the end, I do a lot of my photography close to the ocean, so I want a UV filter on the lens for protection. I also want to use my grad ND filters with the holder. Hand holding for long exposures doesn't work well for me. So I picked the 17-35 but YMMV
I don't have either lens, but use comparable zoom ranges, as does my wife. Whether the comparison with your lens choices holds water for you or not, I'll offer it. Choosing between the lenses depends very much on your own shooting style, and to a lesser degree but still important, where you are shooting. In our business and travels I end up using the widest settings (on a 12-24) extensively, while my wife rarely feels the need (on her 10-20). Just the difference between our shooting styles, often of the same subjects.
One thing you'll note if you watch us shoot: I spend an awful lot of time on my belly or hands and knees, while she shoots almost exclusively upright. That's because I pay a whole lot of attention to the close foreground in my shots, and often getting close to alter the relative size of foreground features in a frame really suits what I want to achieve with leading lines and patterns in the landscape. My wife doesn't use the foreground as much, instead concentrating on the mid- and background.
Both are great lens, but 14-24 is really specialized for wide shooting (as Hank mentioned). I used 14-24 for a while but did not keep it because it can't take filters and most of my photography is done using at least some type of filter. So you have to see it from whatever your need is
Here's an example of my "flat belly" photography, as my wife calls it. The water in the foreground is actually a puddle no larger than an open magazine. I was using the 12-24mmDX on a D2X, with the camera body resting directly on the rock and the lens at 12mm and scarcely an inch over the water. My wife stood upright and shot the same scene at around 35mm using the vegetation and a dry stream bed as leading lines. Two very different approaches shot side by side, with great results for both.
One other variable to factor into your thinking: do you think that down the road you'll be going to a "super" hi-res FX body (such as the current D3x)? The reason I mention this is that I have been debating a wider angle zoom (I currently own the "new" FX 24-70 mm f2.8) and was thinking seriously about purchasing the 17-35. I know I'll be using a D3x (or the rumoured D700x) fairly soon, and I wanted to confirm the lens worked well with that body. I emailed the only person I know who had tested the combo and who's opinion I trust (and someone who's views on lenses are almost always exactly the same as mine) - Bjorn Rorslett. His response:
hi Brad
many have asked and I have to disappoint a lot of people. while the centre
of the D3X frame is excellent, corners are not. in fact, for many subjects
even f/11 will not render the corners adequately sharp. obviously focused
distance and the "depth" of the subject will come into play here, but
17-35 should not be considered a general-purpose lens on the D3x unless
you can verify the issues with it are not detrimental to the intended
tasks.
I have had excellent results with the 24/2.8 AIS and 35/1.4 on the D3X, so
obviously one can't conclude that only the 14-24 and 24-70 should be used
with the D3X.
Sorry to muddy the issue...but just thought the information might be important to you...
Brad
PS: if you aren't familiar with Bjorn's excellent lens reviews, go here: http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html#top1
You make me really happy that we hung onto all our old D-series lenses Brad! Super glass, and I'm betting based on that report that FX causes a run on them. If you don't already own one, I'd scout out a clean version of the 20-35mm f/2.8D and grab it. You'll never regret it!
I have both the 14-24 and the 17-35 and shoot with the D700 & D3x. I have to say that there's a use for both actually. The 14-24 is a phenomenally sharp lens who's extra reach to 14mm really can help with those in your face wide angle scenics. The problem as you mention is that you can't really use filters on it and it's for that reason that I picked up relatively recently another 17-35. Sometime you just have to go with grads ... I often shoot HDR with the 14-24 when I'd sooner just use a filter.
I'm sure that Bjorn Rorslett is right about the edge rendering with the D3x although to be honest it doesn't affect my style of shots and if anything I'm likely to be intentionally vignetting in a print or the lens distortion will make the corners not so important anyway. If you need the ultimate flat distortion free image then the 14-24 is probably a better choice. But as Bjorn says regarding the 17-35 & D3x, "verify the issues with it are not detrimental to the intended tasks.".
Be aware also with the 14-24 that the hood is fragile. Mine is currently at Nikon being replaced due to an unfortunate knock that shattered the lens hood (it involved a door and a cold lens!). The front element is fun to keep clean too.
In answer to your question I do intend to purchase a hi-res D3x/D700x camera in the furture and was looking to the 17-35 as a good match for it. Pity that this lens has issues with the D3x and I guess that leaves me with only the 14-24 as a wide angle landscape option, not quite the answer I was looking for. I really would like the option of using filters and wonder what other lens options are left.
Thanks Brad and all for your input. I decided the 14-24 would be the best option since it doesn't have the shortcomings of the 17-35 on a his-res D3x type sensor and you can use a special Conkin Holder that connects to the lens hood allowing the use of NDs and GNDs.
I have the Nikon D3X and the 17-35mm f/2.8D and don’t find there to be a problem.
Here’s a review of the D3X – the reviewer used a Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8D Click Here
He’s an article that Ken Rockwell wrote about the 17-35mm f/2.8D and mentions the 14-24mm f/2.8G Click Here
I have had good results from the 17-35mm f/2.8D and would recommend it as a good landscape lens on the D3X. However if you really want to have the best IQ then steer from zooms all together while shooting with the D3X and get some primes.
I have shot with a 16mm f/2.8D, 20mm f/2.8D, 24mm f/2.8D, 28mm f/2.8D and 35mm f/1.4D. All these lens together work out cheaper than a 17-35mm f/2.8D.
Hank says about the 12-24mm on a DX body is wide but is only 18-36mm. A 17-35mm on an FX body is 17-35mm while a 14-24mm is crazy wide!
I did jump the gun a bit and found out through further research that Conkin does make an adapter ring system for the 14-24 but it viginettes at anything wider than 18mm on FX. Back to the 17-35. I deal with any softness I encounter and I'm far more lilely to get the lens well before a D3x/D700x hi-res. I love my D700 with those big pixel buckets and high iso performance (not needed for landscape though).
Primes are nice but hate changing lenses in the field!
VR, Glenn
Posted by Paul Inglis on July 22, 2009 at 11:47 AM
I have found the 17-35mm f/2.8D very useable on the D3X. Yes wide open (f/2.8) at 17mm there is darkening on the corners but by the time you stopped down to f/5.6 it clears up and at 20mm f/4. Other than that it works fine. For landscape work with filters I am often working between f/8 and f/11 with cracking results.
Discussion
16 repliesI use the 17-35 AFS f/2.8 on my D700 with excellent results. I purchased it many years ago to use with my film F5. I hung on to it and when I got the D700 it is now one of my most used lenses. To my eyes it is very sharp when used on the D700 and will take filters, something the 14-24 will not. If you can find one I would recommend it.
Steve
André
One thing you'll note if you watch us shoot: I spend an awful lot of time on my belly or hands and knees, while she shoots almost exclusively upright. That's because I pay a whole lot of attention to the close foreground in my shots, and often getting close to alter the relative size of foreground features in a frame really suits what I want to achieve with leading lines and patterns in the landscape. My wife doesn't use the foreground as much, instead concentrating on the mid- and background.
Just very different styles.
One other variable to factor into your thinking: do you think that down the road you'll be going to a "super" hi-res FX body (such as the current D3x)? The reason I mention this is that I have been debating a wider angle zoom (I currently own the "new" FX 24-70 mm f2.8) and was thinking seriously about purchasing the 17-35. I know I'll be using a D3x (or the rumoured D700x) fairly soon, and I wanted to confirm the lens worked well with that body. I emailed the only person I know who had tested the combo and who's opinion I trust (and someone who's views on lenses are almost always exactly the same as mine) - Bjorn Rorslett. His response:
Sorry to muddy the issue...but just thought the information might be important to you...
Brad
PS: if you aren't familiar with Bjorn's excellent lens reviews, go here: http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html#top1
I'm sure that Bjorn Rorslett is right about the edge rendering with the D3x although to be honest it doesn't affect my style of shots and if anything I'm likely to be intentionally vignetting in a print or the lens distortion will make the corners not so important anyway. If you need the ultimate flat distortion free image then the 14-24 is probably a better choice. But as Bjorn says regarding the 17-35 & D3x, "verify the issues with it are not detrimental to the intended tasks.".
Be aware also with the 14-24 that the hood is fragile. Mine is currently at Nikon being replaced due to an unfortunate knock that shattered the lens hood (it involved a door and a cold lens!). The front element is fun to keep clean too.
In answer to your question I do intend to purchase a hi-res D3x/D700x camera in the furture and was looking to the 17-35 as a good match for it. Pity that this lens has issues with the D3x and I guess that leaves me with only the 14-24 as a wide angle landscape option, not quite the answer I was looking for. I really would like the option of using filters and wonder what other lens options are left.
Glenn
Thanks Again, Glenn
Here’s a review of the D3X – the reviewer used a Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8D Click Here
He’s an article that Ken Rockwell wrote about the 17-35mm f/2.8D and mentions the 14-24mm f/2.8G Click Here
I have had good results from the 17-35mm f/2.8D and would recommend it as a good landscape lens on the D3X. However if you really want to have the best IQ then steer from zooms all together while shooting with the D3X and get some primes.
I have shot with a 16mm f/2.8D, 20mm f/2.8D, 24mm f/2.8D, 28mm f/2.8D and 35mm f/1.4D. All these lens together work out cheaper than a 17-35mm f/2.8D.
Hank says about the 12-24mm on a DX body is wide but is only 18-36mm. A 17-35mm on an FX body is 17-35mm while a 14-24mm is crazy wide!
Just my tuppence!
Happy shooting,
Paul
I did jump the gun a bit and found out through further research that Conkin does make an adapter ring system for the 14-24 but it viginettes at anything wider than 18mm on FX. Back to the 17-35. I deal with any softness I encounter and I'm far more lilely to get the lens well before a D3x/D700x hi-res. I love my D700 with those big pixel buckets and high iso performance (not needed for landscape though).
Primes are nice but hate changing lenses in the field!
VR, Glenn