anyone using the 17-35mm 2.8?

did a search on this lens and it didn't come up on any threads . . currently have a d7000 (in hopes of getting a d700 or d3s soon) and have a 50 1.4, 24-70 2.8, 80-200 2.8. and think this would be a nice wide to have in the arsenal. don't really have a preference in shooting. just want to have what I need when I need it. just wondering why I don't see too many posts on this lens and wondering if there is a better choice in the wide department. thanks for any info.

It's an awesome lens for DX only (D7000, D5000,etc) if you are going to get a D700 or D3s forget the 17-55 2.8 get a 24-70 2.8 or my favorite a 24-120VR F4 these will work with the D7000 & D700 & D3s yes I do own one.

salvatore said:

It's an awesome lens for DX only (D7000, D5000,etc) if you are going to get a D700 or D3s forget the 17-55 2.8 get a 24-70 2.8 or my favorite a 24-120VR F4 these will work with the D7000 & D700 & D3s yes I do own one.

Click to expand...

it's the 17-35mm 2.8. not 55. lol. the 17-35 is a fx lens. I know I have non dx lenses with a dx body right now but like I said. thinking of getting a fx body sometime soon. I have the 24-70 2.8 and your right, even on my d7000 it's still a very good lens. my favorite so far. thanks for the reply.

The 17-35 2.8 (I have one too) is a big heavy tank of a lens and it will work just great with the D7000 - however if you could swing it the 24-70 2.8 would be a better choice especially if you are going FX

salvatore said:

The 17-35 2.8 (I have one too) is a big heavy tank of a lens and it will work just great with the D7000 - however if you could swing it the 24-70 2.8 would be a better choice especially if you are going FX

Click to expand...

yes I own the 24-70 2.8. very good lens. just wanted to get a little wider than 24mm. on a full frame, my 24-70mm will be a bit wider and I might not need any wider than that may be. I can't see the 17-35 being much more heavier than my 24-70. but then I haven't read all the specs on it. thanks again for the info.

Sorry missed the part about the 24-70 - another one you might want to check out is the 16-35VRF4 - I has this lens as well and it is awesome being an f4 instead of a 2.8 doesn't hinder it at all especially on a D700

miknoypinoy said:

yes I own the 24-70 2.8. very good lens. just wanted to get a little wider than 24mm. on a full frame, my 24-70mm will be a bit wider and I might not need any wider than that may be. I can't see the 17-35 being much more heavier than my 24-70. but then I haven't read all the specs on it. thanks again for the info.

Click to expand...

Hi Mike- I would suggest in holding off in getting an ultra-wide angle lens for now if your ultimate goal is to go FX. The reason being is that once you have a FX and DX camera, you'll quickly realize that the 24mm on FX, which has an equivalent 16mm FOV on your D7000, is actually wide enough on most situation.

I have the Nikon 16-35mm f4 VR which is much more updated, cheaper and sharper than the 17-35mm f2.8 but it is one of my least used lens since the 24-70-200 gets most of the action. But if you must have one, I would suggest the 16-35mm instead.

If you haven't invested in a good tripod and ballhead yet, that might be another expensive purchase that can equal the lens purchase.

+1 with everything Glenn said. Couldn't agree more.

thanks guys for all the advice. sounds pretty "sound". I figured once I went to full frame my 24 would plenty wide. just browsing lenses and saw that 17. yes tri pod and ball head should be a good chunk of change. probably start looking at that. (really right stuff is looking appealing but pricy for a ball head. lol) thanks again.