Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Nikon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 21, 2004, 8:04 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11
Default

Hi.

Nikon or Canon wide zoom??

I sold my mediumrange Mamiya 6 a year ago and now I will go digital. I feel the lenses are most important. The digitalbody will come and go while an expensive lens will remane... (start with digital rebel/10D + lens or D70/S2 + lens)

Important features for me:

*35mmlens ´cos the ccd´s prob grow larger in time.
*f2.8
*Optical quality

Read an ok review of Canons lenses on Luminous (17-40 looks nice, the expensive 16-35 looked worce), but missing Nikons 17-35 2.8.

I like Canons digital bodys (and the pic´s) better than Nikons (though I´m a former Nikon F90X & F4s owner), but not if the Canon 16-35 f2.8 is worse than Nikons...

Anyone seen a prof. review of the Nikon? Anyone used the Nikon and have pic´s to mail? [email protected]

Thanx!



JackWorm is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 7, 2004, 7:47 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 610
Default

I you intend to use the beter quaility lens with digital SLR, the AF-S DX 17-55mm F/2.8 is an outstanding lens for the D70, D100, S2, S3, D1X and D2H.The AF-S 17-35mm F/2.8 is a little short in range but it will work on both film and digital SLR ( the 17-55mm is not suitable for film cameras)The EF 16-35mm F/2.8is a great lens, perfect for 10D, 1Ds and the Mark II. I'm not really looking in to the direction of obtain the Rebel body to use with this up-scale expensive lens. There is a lower price version of this lens: the EF-17-40mm F/4, a bout 1/2 price, 1 stop slower but you get the same quality L glass.



Cheers:idea:
tuanokc@hotmail.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2004, 12:20 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
marokero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 769
Default

I thought about waiting for a rumored 14-35mm f/2.8, but 17mm was wide enough for my needs, and I needed it now, not in a few months or wait indefinetly. And the 17-55 DX wasn't even considered as I need lenses to work on both film and digital bodies. How about these reviews:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...rt=7&thecat=28

http://www.pcphotoreview.com/35mm,Zo...5_3128crx.aspx
marokero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 2004, 8:10 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 610
Default

If you need the lens to work with both Digital and film cameras, the 17-35mm is an excellent candidate, in fact, you can get up to $300 rebate right now with Nikon if you buy the lens, the D100 body and one of the other lens or the SB50DX flash (double rebate plus $100 bonus), the only draw back is: it's subtantially heavy than the D100 body, 26 oz vs the 24 oz and the D70 is about 21 oz, it feels better in your hand when mounts on the D100 with the battery grip attached. I tend to lean forward the 17-55mm, not just because it has the better range, but it was designed for D-SLR, match the sensor, very much free of distortion and lighter weight, the only problem is: this little burger is selling like pan-cake and it's on the long waiting list everywhere now...
tuanokc@hotmail.com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 11, 2004, 4:04 AM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11
Default

Hi.

I wont by a lens made for the x1.5 cropping, doesnt make sense in the long run.

-And the Nikon 17-35 2.8 is made for the first Nikon D1(H?) so it is a "digital" lens?

The weight isn´t a problem - used to own a F4s *lol* And I´ll use vertical grips...



I´ve seen reviews on fredmiranda and other places, but real pro-reviews not from owners but from people doing that for a living...

The Q remains; Canons f2.8 or Nikons f2.8?

JackWorm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 11, 2004, 4:39 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 579
Default

JackWorm wrote:
Quote:
-And the Nikon 17-35 2.8 is made for the first Nikon D1(H?) so it is a "digital" lens?
No, the 17-35 is NOT made for D1. It is made for BOTH film and digital. This is a wonderful lens, extremely sharp with a trade off- a little higher barrel (and strange) distortion. However, on a digital body, this strange distortion is not so noticeable. See here for a professional review: http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2_PC.html I personally like the 17-35 better than the 17-55. I used the 17-35 mainly on F5, F100, D100 and D70 (and waiting for a D2X). I have never been disappointed. It is very smooth and always delivers the results that I want.
Quote:
The Q remains; Canons f2.8 or Nikons f2.8?
Hmmm, this is a personal choice. No comment. :-)

CK

http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam

Nikon Coolpix 950/990/995/2500/4500/5700 User Guide


shene is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 11, 2004, 8:31 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
marokero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 769
Default

I do weddings for a living, maybe my opinion will count? :| Yes, like shene said, the 17-35 is not a digital lens, ala DX style. Yes, Nikon developed the 17-35 after the D1 came out due to the lack of a wide angle for it, but also to update its line of lenses - the 17-35 replaced the 20-35 as Nikon's ultra wide zoom. Anyway, it's a very sharp lens, flare is very well controlled, way better than my 28-70 and the 70-200 VR which flare quite a bit with strong backlit scenes. I don't know if I got a special lens, the specs say its closest focusing distance should be 11 inches, but I can focus (and AF) at almost 4 inches! I use it a lot between my D100 and F100, light fall off at 17mm is not noticeable on film, much less with digital. What else can I say, I love this lens! There is some distortion, but nothing I wasn't expecting from an ultra wide zoom. Canon's 17-35 f/2.8 in this respect isn't that much better either - sometimes I use my friend's Canon equipment and he owns that lens, not the 16-35, and frankly it distorts more than Nikon's.
marokero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 11, 2004, 3:33 PM   #8
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 83
Default

Does anyone know or have used the Tamron AF 17 - 35mm f/2.8-4 DI CD lens?

Half the price of Nikon's and do know you get what you pay for..I have had good results with Tamron in the past.
Ross is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 15, 2004, 4:40 PM   #9
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11
Default



Thank You marokero. Can You comment on the sharpness on You´re Nikon wide open at 17mm vs. You´re friends Canon at f2.8 17mm?.

-I wont put out the extra money on an expencive lens that doesnt preform ok wide open... ;-)



And Ross, I´ve heard the Tamron 17-35 f2.8-4.0 is quite alot better then Sigmas, but just hearsys...


JackWorm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2004, 8:25 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
marokero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 769
Default

I don't have any images from my friend's Canon 17-35, but here's a little test I did last night:


This is a resized full image taken with my D100 + 17-35 AF-S at the 17mm setting. Following is a series of 100% crops from the corner and center of the image:





This is the resized full image taken at the 35mm setting. Following is a series of 100% crops from the corner and center of the image:




At eitherfocal length it's a bit soft wide open, and what lens isn't, but in real use, it's not that noticeable unless you do very big enlargements. From f/4 on things get sharper. The following is a shot from 4" away at the 35mm focal length:



And a 100% crop of the center:


Hope you find it helpful
marokero is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:00 AM.