There are 2160 lenses in our database and 3520 owners opinions.
You can also
compare lenses side-by-side
Search by:
Nikon Nikkor AF-S 17-35 mm f/2.8D ED-IF
Pictures:
Specifications:
| Manufacturer | Nikon Nikkor |
|---|---|
| Model | AF-S 17-35 mm f/2.8D ED-IF |
| Lens style | Wide angle zoom |
| Focal length | 17 - 35 mm |
| Maximum aperture | f/2.8 |
| Angle of view | 104 - 62 o |
| Closest focusing distance | 0.28 m |
| Maximum magnification | 1:4.6 |
| Minimum aperture | 22 |
| Number of diaphragm blades | 9 |
| Auto focus type | AF |
| Lens Construction | 13 elements / 10 groups |
| Filter diameter | 77 mm |
| Macro | No |
| Available mounts | Nikon F |
| Dimensions | 82.5 x 106 mm |
| Weight | 745 g |
| Additional information | Marketed 1999 |
Owners reviews (9)
Overall
Owner since: 9 years
Price:
User profile: Semipro
Cons: Borders wide open not very sharp.
Pros: Very sharp between 8-11, even on a D800.
Summary: Perfect Zoom Range for Landscapes, no problems with flares, my favourite Lens for years, on a F4 as well as on a D800.
Overall
Owner since: 2 years
Price: 990£
User profile: Amateur
Cons: Softer at 17mm compared to 35mm Soft corners wide open Weight
Pros: sharp Professional lens - build and photography Amazing that 12 year old technology gives/the newer wide angles run for their money
Summary: I replaced my 16-35 with 17-35 and have never looked back. 16-35 has awful distortion at both ends and relatively softer at the long end with pin cushion - not great for people or object photos. 17-35 is a 2.8 lens and feels real good . the 16-35 is funny shaped and longer. At the sweet spot both are comparable at 5.6 getting brochure quality by f8-11. At 17mm perhaps the 17-35 loses slightly in sharpness esp wide open but the 16-35 distortion wide open is horrible ! For me the 17-35 is a better lens. Last the 20-35mm is no match for either - had that lens too
Overall
Owner since: 1 year
Price: $1700
User profile: Professional
Cons: Heavy, expensive and wide open, at 100% pixel peeping the extreme corners are soft if the center is in focus. These are the only negatives.
Pros: Heavy, well built, optically high end sharp. Very low distortion, fully correctable. Flare resistant. Close focusing. A good walk around lens if you don't mind the weight. Works well on a half frame (corners not an issue then), works well on the d700 and the d800e. Takes standard filters. Except for the extreme corners, sharp at every f/stop until diffraction takes over. At f/8 and f/11 the corners are reasonable.
Summary: People make too big of a deal about the corners of an ultra-wide. High resolution in the usable part of the picture is paramount, low flare and easily managed distortion is what a pro lens is about. Nothing else out there offers what this lens does. If you want an ultra wide and weight isn't a paramount factor, this is the lens.
Overall
Owner since: 2 years
Price: 1250E
User profile: Professional
Cons: not very much
Pros: a solid performer in any situation. a bit aged, however, but the 16-35 is no much: distortion, f4 in interiors may be not enough.
Summary: still a good buy for a professional. more useful than 14-24. really a must for interior shooting.
Overall
Owner since: 2 years
Price:
User profile: Amateur
Cons: Weighty Soft at edges when wide open (but what lens isn't)
Pros: Versatile zoom range Sharp when stopped down Ideal landscapers lens (who uses a landscape lens wide open anyway?)
Summary: Great lens to have on the front of your DX or FX camera
Overall
Owner since: 2 years
Price: 1300,00
User profile: Amateur
Cons: BORDERS NOT VERY SHARP.
Pros: OPTICAL QUALITY AND PROFESSIONAL GRADE.
Summary: I USE IT VERY MUCH AND REALLY I THINK IT WAS THE RIGHT CHOICE. ALL IN ALL A VERY GOOD LENS.
Overall
Owner since: 6 months
Price: $1,700
User profile: Professional
Cons: Optics are out of date. The imperfections of the past are no longer acceptable in today's world. This wouldn't be so bad if the price was low, but the price is extremely high for this lens. Specifically, chromatic aberration is pretty bad wide open. Corner sharpness wide open also takes a nose dive. Corner sharpness on any lens is always at its worst wide open, but this is pretty awful. When combined with a high contrast scene, the chroma problems really kill it. At f/4 and f/5.6 it all goes away, and sharpness at f/8 is impeccable. Nevertheless, if you want today's optics you have to buy today's lenses.
Pros: Extremely versatile, the aperture ring lets you use it on older film cameras, built like a tank, too weighty or beefy in size (unlike the 14-24mm, which, in some instances renders it unusable), much more practical focal lengths -- especially for full-frame. Optical quality very good stopped down.
Summary: This would be a great lens if the optical performance was better wide open or the price were less. It's versatile, sharp when stopped down, and built like a tank without actually being too heavy.The price is very high, and the newer 16-35 f/4 is probably a better buy.
Overall
Owner since: 3 years
Price: $1500
User profile: Amateur
Cons: This is soooooooooo heavy.
Pros: Sharp from 5.6 to 11.
Summary: I have this lens for over three years and have taken thousands of pictures with this lens. I can tell you that this is a nice lens in term of relative sharpness, but resolution is not as what I would hope for a $1500 lens should be able to deliver.
Overall
Owner since: 7 years
Price: $1200
User profile: Amateur
Cons: Quite heavy, expensive.
Pros: Everything that comes with "heavy and expensive"; build quality, picture quality is outstanding from f/4, no flare problem, hardly any distortion even at 17mm, AF-S speed is ultrafast on wide angle lenses, etc, etc.
Summary: If you can afford it, buy it, use it and blame yourself if your pictures turns out bad, itīs NOT the lens!