My First Pro Glass

I just took delivery today of a Nikkor AF-S 17-35 f/2.8 lens. This is the first Professional lens I own.

This thing is awesome by any measure. The AF is just about instantaneous and as quiet as a mouse.

I thought about the 16-35 but the bottom line is I wanted pro glass and the 16-35 is a great lens but not "pro". I am so happy I spent the extra bucks. The only downside is that the other two I have in "The Holy Trinity" will have to be updated. This lens is spoiling me.

Nice buy!! I think you made a great choice considering it will accept standard filters. I'm wishing I had picked up this lens instead of the 14-24mm just for that reason. Oh well, live and learn I suppose.

As an FYI, this lens has a tendency to develop a "squeak" when focusing. It doesn't affect the performance or speed of focus but it may get annoying after awhile. On the positive side, it's an easy fix and nearly all Nikon repair shops are well versed in removing the squeak, if your lens develops this and you decide you'd like it to stop.

Cowboybillybob1 said:

I just took delivery today of a Nikkor AF-S 17-35 f/2.8 lens. This is the first Professional lens I own.

This thing is awesome by any measure. The AF is just about instantaneous and as quiet as a mouse.

I thought about the 16-35 but the bottom line is I wanted pro glass and the 16-35 is a great lens but not "pro". I am so happy I spent the extra bucks. The only downside is that the other two I have in "The Holy Trinity" will have to be updated. This lens is spoiling me.

Click to expand...

It is good sometimes to get spoiled!!

Enjoy your new glass...

Pat in NH

I prefer the 16-35 due to it being sharper and it has VR. If you use a tripod, I doubt you'll see much difference. Enjoy your lens.

Just curious, how do you define "pro" when it comes to lenses? I find no "pro" designation when it comes to glass (unlike bodies) so I'm wondering how you determined the 16-35mm f4 to be otherwise?

Cowboybillybob1 said:

I thought about the 16-35 but the bottom line is I wanted pro glass and the 16-35 is a great lens but not "pro".

Click to expand...

That's absolutely incorrect. Just because a lens doesn't have a constant 2.8 doesn't mean it isn't a "pro" lens. In fact, by most reviews I've read, the 16-35 is as good or better than the 17-35 at most focal lengths. And the 16-35 is a newer design and gives you that 1 extra mm, VR, Nano Crystal coating...
If you need 2.8 or shoot a lot of architecture (16-35 has some distortion at 16mm) then the 17-35 is a good choice but if that's not a deal breaker the 16-35 is the better lens.

Herre's a resolution test on the D800 which shows the 16-35 sharper in the center and corners at 5.6.

LensRentals.com - D800 Lens Selection

Comparison:

Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR Review

The Untamed Landscape: The new Nikon AF-S 16-35 f4 VR lens

BackdoorHippie said:

Just curious, how do you define "pro" when it comes to lenses? I find no "pro" designation when it comes to glass (unlike bodies) so I'm wondering how you determined the 16-35mm f4 to be otherwise?

Click to expand...

I think it may have something to do with the build. More metal in the 17-35. Does that really mean anyhting? I dunno...

BackdoorHippie said:

Just curious, how do you define "pro" when it comes to lenses? I find no "pro" designation when it comes to glass (unlike bodies) so I'm wondering how you determined the 16-35mm f4 to be otherwise?

Click to expand...

Pro Lenses have a gold ring around the front of the lens. So it is my error as the 16-35 does have this gold ring.

My mistake. Still this 17-35 kicks booty. It's also 2.8 across all focal lengths as opposed to 4.0 on the 16-35.

I thought the gold ring was to denote the N coating?

Edit: A little digging around also suggests the ring denotes use of ED glass

I think that Nikkor has never been black and white on pro versus not Pro,

That said, there is definitely variation in build and quality, and often seems linked to the speed of the lens.

Here is a nice document from Nikon listing all the lens

http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/pdf/nikkor_lenses.pdf

As you can see, Nikkor is more interested in filling in the focal ranges/speed, and not to describe on as professional and the other amatuer,, but more here are the features,, and price point, and let the end user decide the lens required..

unlike Canon,, with their color rings of quality.

I guess, I kinda like the Nikon method better, and I think over time,, lens become considered
professional such as

the 17-35,,

course ,, no one could ever call the 18-55 DX professional

and no one can doupt that the 14-24 is pro quality

but there are a lot of middle ground where it gets murky.

Congrats on the new lens, now look at the can of worms you opened

Just remember, 2.8 only counts when you shoot wide open. They all do f4-22.

AC016 said:

I think it may have something to do with the build. More metal in the 17-35. Does that really mean anyhting? I dunno...

Click to expand...

Thing is, I looked all over the Nikon site and there was nothing in any of the specs about just how much metal or plastic was in each. Weight is almost identical. Zoom is all internal (no change in lens length). As I see it, the only real difference is the brightness of the glass (which is where your money is going) and 1 less mm.

I dunno all of the Nikkors made nowadays are getting so good one could almost call them all pro...

​

I guess for certain applications an f2.8 UW has it's place.

When it comes to using an ultra-wides, most of the time I'm trying to slow it down with filters. Lol, if they made an extra slow ultra-wide with excellent optics, I'd buy it, it may out sell the fast ones. I don't think I've ever shot one below f5.6, wouldn't give up the DoF even for a night shot.

if you go back to the older Nikon, it was all great, super build, and lens were built for the purpose,

Then came the E series lens, and Nikkor could barely succeed in lowering quality, and in fact, some of the E series are my favorite lens (100 mm gem), and I like the E series 135 2.8.. sweet.

Then came autofocus, and Nikon needed to compete,,, and the first set of really cheapo plastic started to show up. really really bad stuff. and most not made by Nikon,

as we evolved to a consumer line, and the more serious set.

interesting, I believe we are starting to see a convergence in optical quality again, and the lines are blurring again.

but.. even Nikon does declare certain lens professional..

for the newest Nikkors,,

I am leaning toward the 14x24,,, but might pick up the 18x35 first. the buzz on the 18x35 is pretty high.

essentially all the 2.8.. or the super uber high end teles.

but the rest. well, its up to the user, I suppose.

BackdoorHippie said:

Just remember, 2.8 only counts when you shoot wide open. They all do f4-22.

Click to expand...

Jake

I'm normally 100% with you but a 2.8 will also have more light for AF even when you are stopping down for the shot which can be a benefit although my 16-35 is near instant and silent.

As for IQ here is the DXO test results out today which include both.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Pu...essive-ultra-wide-performer-on-the-Nikon-D800

If your auto focus is hunting at f4 then it's probably the camera as much as it is the lens, but I get your point.

Geoffc said:

Jake

I'm normally 100% with you but a 2.8 will also have more light for AF even when you are stopping down for the shot which can be a benefit although my 16-35 is near instant and silent.[/URL]

Click to expand...

That's really only an issue when using TCs. I dobut there's any noticable difference in focus between Nikon's 2.8 and f/4 lenses. As you say, your 16-35 is " near instant".

Very nice lens, congrats! That's some serious glass. Although since I'm more for primes, for that money I would probably be looking for a good used 24 1.4 G. So are we going to see any shots of your new glass on your camera?