A&P 17-35 2.8 quick review w/samples

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by wrong1, Jul 11, 2009.

  1. wrong1

    wrong1 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2004
    Messages:
    1,363
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    socal
    Just got myself a nikon 17-35 2.8. loving it so far. 17mm is sooo wide on FX. I was really really torn between this lens and the 14-24. On one hand the IQ of the 14-24 is untouchable. On the other, it wont take filters and has a less usable range for me. What sealed the deal for me was finding a used 17-35 for $1100.

    Its sharp enough at 2.8 that I will use it there if I need too but it definitely isn't a razor at that aperture. Though it is sharper than the 28-70 2.8 that I sold to buy it.
    [email protected] with zero sharpening applied in post.

    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    but stopped down it really sharpens up...

    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]



    It distorts quite a bit up close at 17, but gets better quickly as subject distance increases and also as you move towards 35mm. All in all. Id say if I bought it new and paid $1700 for it I would be disapointed. For the price I paid I'm loving it.
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2009
  2. turbodude

    turbodude Just a photographer OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2002
    Messages:
    10,118
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    i liked that lens for the short period i had it, for me though the IQ is rivaled by my $200 tamron 17-35 2.8-4. Colors and sharpness are equal. However Nikon was much better at controlling flare and much better built, and of course AF. But the fucking thing is MASSIVE and heavy compared to the tammy. I use the 17-35 alot with onboard Commander, so it became a huge issue. So i decided to get rid of it and go with the 14-24 and keep the tamron.
     
  3. 1992 240SX

    1992 240SX New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,601
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Long Beach, CA
    I'm getting the 14-24 next month prob. I thought of the 17-35 but it wouldn't make sense to me since I have the 24-70 also. Holy trinity here I come....
     
  4. TheManLouisianaFace

    TheManLouisianaFace and decide!

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    Messages:
    32,995
    Likes Received:
    0
    yeah that doesn't look worth the price vs the tammy as far as IQ
     
  5. wrong1

    wrong1 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2004
    Messages:
    1,363
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    socal
    Post up some natural light samples from the tammy wide open. I'd like to see the comparison.
     
  6. tenplanescrashing

    tenplanescrashing Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Messages:
    9,287
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree...while this is just one sample, i'm not a fan of spending even $1100 used on a lens like this.
     
  7. mojito

    mojito New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    62,877
    Likes Received:
    0
    probably not for the hobbyist, but AF speed and construction are reason enough :hs:
     
  8. wrong1

    wrong1 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2004
    Messages:
    1,363
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    socal
    My thoughts exactly. I used to think my tamron 17-55 2.8 was an amazing lens until I got my nikon 28-70 2.8. Sure the tam offered good IQ in a lightweight affordable package, but after seeing the build quality and the ridiculous focus speed of the nikon pro glass there is no comparison.

    I would really rather have turbodudes set up... the trinity glass, with some cheap glass for when I want /need to travel light. Im on too tight of a budget for that luxury right now tho.
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2009
  9. TheManLouisianaFace

    TheManLouisianaFace and decide!

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    Messages:
    32,995
    Likes Received:
    0

    werd, if you need the AF speed, then it's no contest. Just like the tammy 70-200 vs the nikon. 5 seconds of hunting to find focus just won't work well for sports :mamoru: But I shoot mostly architecture/scenes/fine art (I hate that term) i.e. stuff not moving, so I could care less about AF speed. :hs:
     
  10. tenplanescrashing

    tenplanescrashing Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Messages:
    9,287
    Likes Received:
    0
    that's the thing, IF YOU NEED. Unless you're shooting sports or events where it's crucial to get that shot as it happens, the AF speed is a moot point.

    Speaking of which, I shot a birthday party yesterday where some of my shots needed to happen at a specific point or they would have been lost. Shot most of it with my Tamron 17-50 and no problems. :wiggle:
     
  11. turbodude

    turbodude Just a photographer OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2002
    Messages:
    10,118
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Yeah with this set i kind of get to have my cake and eat it too. However I am not in the position that i need the AF speed with the 17-35. I use that lens exclusively for clubs and AF is not a problem due to single point AF and AF assist lamp.

    You got a great deal on the 17-35, and you will thoroughly enjoy it. I just wanted the 14-24, i cant wait to use it in a live concert... Distortion is so low for the nature of the lens, and well its fuckin sharp.
     
  12. Wobistdu

    Wobistdu Guest

    i'm so wanting to bite the bullet for the tamron 17-50.

    i'm scared i'll get a crappy one :wtc:
     
  13. Drunken Karnie Midget

    Drunken Karnie Midget In Yeo We Trust, All Others Pay Cash OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    39,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Dirty Canada
    the 17-50 tammy isn't a matter of biting the bullet. It's probably the best budget lens on the market.
     
  14. Wobistdu

    Wobistdu Guest

    well i just dumped $1300... so another $450 makes me :noes:
     
  15. tenplanescrashing

    tenplanescrashing Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Messages:
    9,287
    Likes Received:
    0
    you know there is such a thing as returning a product if it doesn't work like it should. I've never experienced the issues people talk about on either the 17-50 or the 28-75
     
  16. Drunken Karnie Midget

    Drunken Karnie Midget In Yeo We Trust, All Others Pay Cash OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2004
    Messages:
    39,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Dirty Canada
    I've noticed some issues with the 17-50 cropping up in my images, but mine's had the unfortunate experience of being dropped a couple of times while mounted. the lens shroud spared it the first time, but i'm not certain about the second. :wtc:
     
  17. wrong1

    wrong1 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2004
    Messages:
    1,363
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    socal

    You should stick with the kit lenses for a bit. The longer you use them the more you will appreciate your future upgrades. Nikon kit lenses really aren't all that bad.
     
  18. TheManLouisianaFace

    TheManLouisianaFace and decide!

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    Messages:
    32,995
    Likes Received:
    0

    what kind of issues out of curiosity.
     

Share This Page