A&P What is a good price for this Nikon 17-35mm 2.8?

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by Heinzanova, Mar 7, 2010.

  1. Heinzanova

    Heinzanova OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Messages:
    14,333
    Likes Received:
    30
    Location:
    Singapore, Singapore
  2. Idyfohu

    Idyfohu New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,487
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Utah
    It's good but not great...unless you're in dire need, I'd wait to find a better deal.

    Have you looked at the Nikon 18-35mm? The shitty thing is that's it's 3.5-4.5, but if you don't use wide angle a whole bunch and not in low light regularly, it's a $300-$350 (maybe cheaper if you get a good deal) and does great against the more expensive 2.8 glass. It's the only non 2.8 lens I have for my cam, but the few times I've shot it, everything looks like and sharp, especially for a 1/3 of the price of the 17-35mm.
     
  3. ok_computer

    ok_computer OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2005
    Messages:
    15,615
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Edmonton, AB, Canada
    I've actually heard REALLY good things about the 18-35
     
  4. Idyfohu

    Idyfohu New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,487
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Utah
    It's seriously a great lens and lens that I think a lot of people overlook because the 17-35mm and 20-35mm get all the attention.

    When I did my research I wanted a WA but didn't want to spend a ton of dough as I don't shoot that wide too often and this was perfect. The IQ is close to it's more expensive 2.8 counterparts from everything I've read. And then there's the damn 14-24mm that I want...ah. I'd almost rather splurge on the 14-24mm than the 17-35mm as 14mm is crazy wide, not to mention we know how amazing this lens is.
     
  5. wrong1

    wrong1 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2004
    Messages:
    1,363
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    socal
    17-35 is about $1700 new last time I checked. I paid $1150 for mine. I'd say anywhere around the $1000 mark is a bargain for this lens provided its in good shape, BUT as far as current used market value goes? I see them selling on FM for 1000-1300 range in excellent shape.
     
  6. Heinzanova

    Heinzanova OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Messages:
    14,333
    Likes Received:
    30
    Location:
    Singapore, Singapore
    I have the 14-24 and 24-70 and 70-200 (trinity?) right now. I tend to use the 24-70 in the 24-50ish range, often wishing I had just a little wider more times than not to make a better forground.

    The 14-24 I am just not 100% happy with, it is super sharp, and so wide I end up tripping over my own feet when composing, but it isn't normal enough to throw on and take for a walk around town, but I find it difficult to always make the shot I want with the 24-70.

    (wish I had a 14-200 lol).

    I think the 17-35 would be the sweet spot for my style. I also am not a fan of the distortion the 14-24 makes. I am curious if maybe I would be better off with the new 16-35 F4 as it has VR and most of the time with a super wide, you are not going for DOF isolation, nor are you shooting moving objects in less than optimal lighting. The VR on the super wide might make it a sex machine.

    $.02 ?
     
  7. wrong1

    wrong1 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2004
    Messages:
    1,363
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    socal
    Got a crop body laying around? Throw the 14-24 on a crop and its pretty much the same fov as a 17-35... it equates to roughly 21-36. You could try that out for a couple days to see how you like it?
     
  8. turbodude

    turbodude Just a photographer OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2002
    Messages:
    10,118
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    tamron 17-35 2.8-4 is a great lrns as well
     
  9. Wobistdu

    Wobistdu Guest

    d90 + 14-24 ;)
     

Share This Page