LensTip.com

Lenses

There are 1648 lenses in our database and 3134 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
Average rating (9 owners reviews)
Build quality
Optical quality
Value for money

Overall

4.41 Good
Owners reviews (9)
  1. Mike
    Mike 7 May 2015, 20:19
    Build quality
    Optical quality
    Value for money

    Overall

    IP 194.118.x.x
    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.

  2. nadeem afzal
    nadeem afzal 28 July 2013, 07:03
    Build quality
    Optical quality
    Value for money

    Overall

    IP 90.204.x.x
    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

  3. Joe
    Joe 3 February 2013, 01:22
    Build quality
    Optical quality
    Value for money

    Overall

    IP 108.73.x.x
    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.

  4. gippo
    gippo 23 February 2011, 23:20
    Build quality
    Optical quality
    Value for money

    Overall

    IP 109.117.x.x
    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.

  5. Walkthru
    Walkthru 30 December 2010, 22:45
    Build quality
    Optical quality
    Value for money

    Overall

    IP 123.2.x.x
    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

  6. furioc
    furioc 7 December 2010, 21:57
    Build quality
    Optical quality
    Value for money

    Overall

    IP 87.4.x.x
    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.

  7. William
    William 17 October 2010, 06:29
    Build quality
    Optical quality
    Value for money

    Overall

    IP 71.187.x.x
    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.

  8. Stranger
    Stranger 8 October 2009, 15:18
    Build quality
    Optical quality
    Value for money

    Overall

    IP 192.18.x.x
    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.

  9. Eyespize
    Eyespize 19 September 2009, 11:20
    Build quality
    Optical quality
    Value for money

    Overall

    IP 83.109.x.x
    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!

Add your opinion

Build quality 0 1 2 3 4 5
Optical quality 0 1 2 3 4 5
Value for money 0 1 2 3 4 5