Nikon 17-35 f2.8 (Page 2): It's a phenomenal lens; I'd buy another one in a heartbeat!

photoMark Loc: South Texas

It's a phenomenal lens; I'd buy another one in a heartbeat!

jeryh Loc: Oxfordshire UK

I had this lens for a long time; handed it on to my daughter, who is also a pro wedding photographer; she also used this in India in some very excessive heat. This is a superb lens, and has stood the test of time, heat & moisture without any problems at all. It is extremely sharp.

romanticf16 Loc: Commerce Twp, MI

I bought my 17-35mm f2.8 ID ED from a friend who had used it on a F4 Nikon. It works well for me on either a D300 or D810.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

If you're talking about the 15-35/2.8D lens, I owned that for quite some time and found it to be an excellent lens. Until the release of the 14-24, the 17-35 was my go-to wide angle from film days (F5) into the start of the digital world. The only reason I sold it was that I did not need both. Nikon has done a great job covering a lot of ground with its three 'Holy Trinity' lenses, 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200, all of which I use on a regular basis. Best of luck.

fuminous Loc: Luling, LA... for now...

I've a number of lenses but the 28-300 and 17-35 handle 95% of what I do. Of the two, I prefer the 17-35 when it comes documentation, sharp and interesting perspective. It's tough, too... been rained on, snowed on, earthquakes, dust storms, mud, ice fog and -50, glaciers canoes and kayaks, banged up and down ladders, sides of boats, helicopters and planes... even a sauna... once... been with me around the world several times, and it looks it, but still works wonderfully- not one problem, not one- ever. I've used it for portraits but I'm a little too sloppy for its critical view. My 12-24 is fun but is a work out to use and difficult with people. The 20 f/1.8 is a close second, sharp, very fast and quite maneuverable but the 17-35 has never let me down. If I carry just one lens for fun, it's the 28-300 but if I'm serious, it's the 17-35... I don't know what I'd do without it... except buy another...

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

Mark7829 wrote:

The 16-35 f/4 is a better lens that replaced the 17-35 f/2.8. for a number of reasons most of which you can google.

Yes. Image Resourcing says the same. Is this what you used on those nice landscapes you've posted?

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

LoneRangeFinder wrote:

Yes. Image Resourcing says the same. Is this what you used on those nice landscapes you've posted?

My personal opinion is that both are good lenses. I liked the 17-35 better, perhaps because I used it mostly on a film camera. YMMV

whitewolfowner

Fotomacher wrote:

Have it, love it, used it a lot for my wide angle landscapes. Owned for about 6 years, bought used, never heard about elements that are not glass. It's a pro lens so a bit heavy. Results fantastic.

It's a good lens but can have flaring problems when a light source is in the frame; besides that it is every bit as good as the 20-35 f2.8 lens.

DMGill Loc: Colorado

I've been using a 17-35 f2.8 for about 11 years. It's on its 5 generation of camera bodies and is going strong. It's sharp and does well with both crop and full sensors. I've used it while shooting weddings, events, and landscapes. It's a well built professional quality lens that I wouldn't want to be without. There was a 2008 rumor that it was discontinued, but it is still on the shelves and in the Nikon catalog so I suspect the statement of its demise was premature.

Bill P

Bought the 17=35 as my first lens when I got my D3. That lens has been across the US and enjoyed trips to Italy, Africa, Portugal and Spain, and I wouldn't sell it for any amount of money.

Disclosure: It's a great lens no doubt, sharp and all that, but what makes it great for me is that covers a range of focal lengths that I feel most comfortable using. And I think that is a better of judge of a lens for a particular person than all the lab tests in the world.

oregonfrank Loc: Astoria, Oregon

EZsh00ter wrote:

Hello Hoggers,
About the Nikon 17-35 f2.8. Has anyone here had, or have this lens? How has it held up over time? I understand that it has 2 polycarbonate lens elements in it and under heat (like a hot car trunk) could make those elements change shape, causing softer images. I have read that it is a great and very sharp lens. I am thinking of buying a used one, in person, so I can try it out before I buy. Does anyone have experience with this lens. Thanks, Eric

I bought mine over 10 years ago when I had a Nikon F5. One of my favorites, even on a dx camera. Based on its heft, I seriously doubt there is anything but real glass in it.

Patriot66 Loc: Minnesota

Leon S wrote:

Love my 17-35 2.8. Its heavy but not all that big... (show quote)

Ditto on that, been buying from them for over 20 years!

GAlanFInk

EZsh00ter wrote:

Hello Hoggers,
About the Nikon 17-35 f2.8. Has anyone here had, or have this lens? How has it held up over time? I understand that it has 2 polycarbonate lens elements in it and under heat (like a hot car trunk) could make those elements change shape, causing softer images. I have read that it is a great and very sharp lens. I am thinking of buying a used one, in person, so I can try it out before I buy. Does anyone have experience with this lens. Thanks, Eric

This lens has 13 elements in 10 groups, including two ED glass and three aspherical elements. Two of these are molded glass aspherics, and one is a "composite." Composite means a piece of plastic glued to a glass substrate.

It's multicoated, which Nikon calls Nikon Super Integrated Coating.

If you're planning on keeping it in a kiln, maybe it's better to look for something else but a car trunk?... I've heard they can get up to 135F... something I wouldn't worry about unless I had Canon lenses ;-p

GENorkus Loc: Washington Twp, Michigan

EZsh00ter wrote:

Hello Hoggers,
About the Nikon 17-35 f2.8. Has anyone here had, or have this lens? How has it held up over time? I understand that it has 2 polycarbonate lens elements in it and under heat (like a hot car trunk) could make those elements change shape, causing softer images. I have read that it is a great and very sharp lens. I am thinking of buying a used one, in person, so I can try it out before I buy. Does anyone have experience with this lens. Thanks, Eric

Coming from a Pentax user, trust me when I say the Nikon 17-35 f2.8 is a great lens and has been for years!

The lens was designed for full frame use but can be used on crop sensor cameras with no real problems. I really don't think you'll notice any defraction unless you go to the extremes and then only if you have a "purest" evaluate things.

As for the part you mentioned; "I understand that it has 2 polycarbonate lens elements in it and under heat (like a hot car trunk) could make those elements change shape, causing softer images." That probably came from a Canon user. You know, the guy's that need a white lens in order to feel like a professional! LoL

racerrich3 Loc: Los Angeles, Ca.

Eric, I have not seen Nikoncharlie's reply yet but Nikon does make a 17-55mm f/2.8G IF ED lens for $ 1500.