Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8 vs 18-35mm f3.5-4.5G

Gainzwhey

Gainzwhey

New member
Hello,

I’ve looking to buy a wide angle lens. One of the options is the 17-35mm f/2.8 but looking at the specs at DXoMark I was stunned by how poorly it performed on over all sharpness and specially the chromatic aberration. Can anyone confirm that? The 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G performed so much better and is much cheaper that I’m considering buy the latter.
Anyone have some pointers, suggestions?
Thanks
 
BF Hammer

BF Hammer

Senior Member
I never owned either lens. The 17-35mm has a very bad reputation on full-frame cameras as it has softness on the edges that is not so pronounced on a crop-sensor DX camera body. The 18-55 also suffers from this to a lesser degree.

So it would help to know if you intend to put the lens on a full-frame FX camera or a cropped DX camera. Because if you are shopping to put on a DX body, skip them both. Go to the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 Art lens. Similar price, constant f/1.8 aperture, and mostly sharp. That lens I did use on a D7000 until I upgraded to a FX body D750.
 
Gainzwhey

Gainzwhey

New member
BF Hammer said:
I never owned either lens. The 17-35mm has a very bad reputation on full-frame cameras as it has softness on the edges that is not so pronounced on a crop-sensor DX camera body. The 18-55 also suffers from this to a lesser degree.

So it would help to know if you intend to put the lens on a full-frame FX camera or a cropped DX camera. Because if you are shopping to put on a DX body, skip them both. Go to the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 Art lens. Similar price, constant f/1.8 aperture, and mostly sharp. That lens I did use on a D7000 until I upgraded to a FX body D750.
Click to expand...
Using on a D810
 
Gainzwhey

Gainzwhey

New member
I was kind of shocked at how badly this lens performed on DxoMark. I saw the angry photographer also say terrible things about it. But I read other online reviews on DPreview and Kenrockwell and it was mainly good. That's why I thought I might get some opinions here. I certainly can't afford the 14-24mm nor would I because it can use any filters. The 16-35mm is a bit over budget, initially at $500 used. I'm willing to go up to $400.
 
Fred Kingston

Fred Kingston

Senior Member
The D810 is a 36M sensor...I don't think that lens can resolve that sensor simply because of the age/design of the lens. Hence the crappy DXO scores. It isn't the fault of the lens, it's just simply at the time that lens was designed, the then current pro and semi-pro sensors were in the 10-12M range... I think you'd just be wasting your time...
 
Gainzwhey

Gainzwhey

New member
Fred Kingston said:
The D810 is a 36M sensor...I don't think that lens can resolve that sensor simply because of the age/design of the lens. Hence the crappy DXO scores. It isn't the fault of the lens, it's just simply at the time that lens was designed, the then current pro and semi-pro sensors were in the 10-12M range... I think you'd just be wasting your time...
Click to expand...
Yeah, I understand that wide-angle lenses have evolved massively in the last years and certainly the the 17-35mm is just outdated although still usable with cameras of its times, as you suggested.
 
Fred Kingston

Fred Kingston

Senior Member
The issue is the higher resolution of the D810. Not many lenses can take advantage of the higher res. of that sensor.

20mm
24-70mm 2.8
70-200mm 2.8
200-500mm 5.6

Pretty much covers the entire forcal length range... Your advantage at this time is the fact that all these lenses are now being discounted tremendously as folks trade-in their DSLRs for newer mirrorless cameras, and their newer lenses...
 
Top