17-35mm F/2.8D Nikkor vs. 14-24mm F/2.8G Nikkor lens

DW_

Senior Member
I have an opportunity to purchase a beautiful 17-35mm lens that looks like it's never been used at all for $1300 and has approximately 2.5 yrs left on the warranty. It comes with this incredible felt-lined case that looks like it would survive a tactical nuclear strike. There's not a mark or scuff anywhere to be seen on the lens. The seller claims he's not used it nearly as much as he thought he would and instead uses a 35mm F/1.4G.
Here's my problem. I have been on the fence as to whether my next lens should be the massive 14-24mm wide angle or this not-so-wide angle 17-35mm. On the positive side, the 17-35mm has less elements, which equals less reason to need repair, however the lens squeaks when focusing, something these lenses are notorious for.
So what do you think? Should I go ahead and make the jump on this lens or wait and pick up a 14-24? And what to make of the squeakiness? Is that a signal of bad things ahead? Is it something that a trip to the repair shop can fix?

Ah...decisions, decisions.
 

Rick M

Senior Member
I guess it really depends on what you already have and your shooting style. I would go for the 14-24, but I like shooting wide. Personally, I would not spend $1300 on something that may have a problem.
 

gqtuazon

Gear Head
I skipped on the 17-35mm f2.8 and went for the 16-35mm f4 VRII instead. I do wonder from time to time entertain the idea of getting the 14-24mm f2.8 but I rarely shoot wider than 20mm on a FX camera. Although they now sell 3rd party lens filter adapters for the 14-24mm, that will add another $650 to $700 to the total cost.

Sharpness wise, the 16-35mm f4 trumps the 17-35mm f2.8.
 

bluenoser

Banned
Great posts by Rick and Glenn - very good advice.

I'm not a big wide angle guy at all. I find that the 24-70 2.8 is plenty wide enough for me and I'm sure I'd find all the lenses you've mentioned getting limited use. My 24-70 doesn't come off my D700 too often! :) (oops. I just noticed that you are talking about a DX body - in that case I'd go for the 17-55 2.8 which I also own and love on my D7000!)

If you were set on going wider and choosing between the 17-35, 12-24 or the 16-35 I'd agree with Glenn and got with the 16-35.

I would NOT buy a $1,300 lens that squeaked for any reason - especially during focusing! :)
 

LensWork

Senior Member
$1300 for an AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8 is high, especially with a squeaky AF-S motor. Used this lens commonly sells for $900. I have shot with the AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8 and while it is an awesome lens that produces spectacular images, I sent the sample back to Nikon after shooting on pit road during a NASCAR race because all day I was terrified that the bulbous front element was going to get damaged (you cannot put a UV filter on the lens). I'll keep my 17-35.
 

Dr Daniels

Senior Member
Like James, I'm not really into ultra wide angle lenses, anything wider than 24mm. I often thought about getting the 14-24mm because it is a legend on its own, but not sure if I'd use it that much.

The 17-35mm is probably best on a FX body.
If it's not a question of money, I'd take the 14-24mm over any other ultra wide lenses.
I bought the 16-35mm f/4 VR last year and sold it a few months after, mainly because I didn't use it that much. And if lens construction takes precedence over price, the 14-24 is built like a rock, the 16-35 is plastic with its focus ring having a lot of play (at least mine had).
 

RRRoger

Senior Member
I have both and use them for very different purposes.
Yes, the 14-24 is worth more.
I paid $900 for my 17-35 Mint. It does not squeek!
It is smaller, lighter, and takes cheap filters.

If you are deciding on only one, you need to get "hands on" before you buy.
You might also review the pictures you have taken to see what the widest is that you are/will be shooting.
There is nothing close to the 14-24 in quality except the 14 & 24mm fixed lens and they cost as much each.
 

pedroj

Senior Member
Some thing with a squeak sounds suspect...If it goes on the blink it makes it expensive because I'm not sure warranty is transferable...They can be bought new here for $1550...I haven't used either of the lens you have listed, I have the 16-35mm F4 VR and hardly ever go wider then 20mm and is comparable [with sharpness] to my 28-70m F2.8...
 

RRRoger

Senior Member
When I got my FullFrame D3, back 5 years ago, , surprising to me, I suddenly wanted wider not longer lens.

I notice that you have DX cameras. If you are going to stay with that format,
You might consider the AF-S Nikkor 10-24 DX lens, I've used it a lot on the D7000 and D5100.
 

Gladiator

Senior Member
I personally would not trade my faithfull 17-35 for a 14-24mm. If it ever let me down i would, but i have other lenses to buy before that :)
 

Gladiator

Senior Member
Yep but some of us need the speed and the 17-35 trumps the 14-24mm Plus you don't have to spend more money to be able to use filters.

The 17-35mm is built like a tank and i was not afraid to use it in the Sahara desert with blowing sand and crap but i would be scared of using the 14-24mm without a filter as the front lens would surely be sandblasted.
 

gqtuazon

Gear Head
I personally would not trade my faithfull 17-35 for a 14-24mm. If it ever let me down i would, but i have other lenses to buy before that :)

Obviously you haven't tested a lot of lenses other than what you have. If I had a 17-35mm f2.8, I wouldn't hesitate to upgrade it to the classic 14-24mm f2.8. The 17-35mm f2.8 isn't really as sharp as the latter.
 
Top