Reviews and Problems with Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S
Showing 1-8 of 8
14 April 2011
Excerpt: While the quality of the lens manufacture is high I've have focus problems on both the F100 and the D7000 bodies. In both cases the camera will not fire because the autofocus did not find a focus point. The lens focus bounces back and forth without finding the sweet spot. This is not because of low light or lack of strong objects to select within the array of autofocus sensors. It always takes a touch of the manual focus ring for the lens to find the sweet spot.
Excerpt: I bought this lens to do lower light photographs. When I manage to catch some high intense light in my picture (like the moon in a night shot, or a bright light in a darker room) at the low aperture settings, there's lots of internal reflection causing blue spots in the image. The only way I can get rid of the IR is to crank up the aperture which kind of defeats the purpose anyway of this lens. I wish I saved my money and got a standard f1.4 fixed length lens.
Summary: Okay so I've never had the real money to actually buy it so each time I've rented the lens. Perhaps the fact that it was a rental could have effected the outcome of my images, but at this point, lets assume that I had actually bought it. Alot of talk has this lens at legendary status and I wouldn't doubt that given its history of usage as a preferred photojournalist's/wedding photographer's go to lens.
Pros: Produces good image quality., Contrary to what other people believe, I think the weight is really nice. Gives my camera a center of mass and balance.
Cons: Terrible auto focus. I don't know what 17-35 you're using because this one's auto focus is horrendous.
Summary: Check the quality control of this lens when you buy. Mine had severe front focus problems. Even when i selected the auto focus sensor the lens still had focusing issues . The lens was soft to F4. At F2.8 the images were incredibly poor. In my 20+ years of photography i have never seen a lens this bad. To make sure, i borrowed a friends 18-55VR. This $200.00 lens had better color saturation, contrast and accurate auto focus. Not only that, but it was sharper.
Summary: At $1,500, this lens should be mint straight from the factory. My copy failed to auto-focus properly and appeared to have serious backfocus issues. Although the "Silent Wave Motor" made for very quick focusing times (if the copy had been focusing properly), it made a pronounced metal-on-metal or metal-on-plastic, high-pitched scraping sound at times. I understand this is endemic in many copies.
Conclusion: It´s unbelievable. Judging from the numerous raving reviews on the web about this lens I had no doubt ordering one and believed I wouldnt ever need anything else. I was shocked then about the performance after initial testing at various subjects with different apertures and focal lenghts: Dramatically poor! This lens becomes usable not sooner than f5.6, its really bad below and a joke at 2.8.
Summary: Wer ein 50mm oder 105mm Nikkor Festbrennweite sein eigen nennt wird mit der Bildqualität dieses Objektivs nicht gleich zufrieden sein. Sicher kann man schwerlich eine Festbrennweite mit einem Zoom vergleichen, jedoch gibt es bessere Weitwinkelzooms als dieses hier. Schon die ersten Aufnahmen mit dem 17-35mm machten bereits am Kameradisplay klar, das ich dieses Objektiv nicht mein Eigen nennen werde. Deutliche Schärfeschwächen in fast allen Blendenstufen.
Excerpt: Объектив для репортажа в купе вагона на ф 2.8 , для пейзажей на ф5.6-8 тоже неплох , но кстати за счет своих,вышеупомянутых недостатков , это стекло имеет огромный творческий потенциал в руках художника , цена за новый неадекватная , но это уже качество не стекла, а людей