|
Articles and Reviews
|
Home >> Photography Nikon
17-35mm f2.8 AF-S Lens Prologue – Subjective Blather from Someone Who Should Know Better
While photographing with top-grade equipment is certainly an enjoyable experience, buying new gear is a potential trap of always thinking, gee, if I only had some whiz-bang Z6 camera with the Super Duper ABC-XYZ f2.8 lens; they would allow me to become a better photographer by virtue of owning better equipment. Or how about the gem of, this camera or lens is allowing me to take photos I could never have taken without it. Yada, yada, yada, yawn, next please…
I
wanted this lens for hubris. I want people to know that I own
and use pro-level gear to raise myself in their eyes. I want silly
wedding guests trying to take photos with their point and shoots
and plastic SLRs to get of my way when they see me coming with
the big, black SLR with a huge honking lens mounted to it. And
yes,
Oops, who let Mr. Hyde slip out with that last paragraph? Ahem, Dr. Jekyll is back in control. Okay, kidding aside, buying this lens did indeed give me a warm and fuzzy feeling inside at the beginning and while on an objective level, I didn’t believe my photography would improve without me actually getting out and practicing the craft with it, subjectively, it was very nice to know that I had supposedly high-quality optics that would not be compromised. That if the photos are not as I had hoped for then it is because of me and not the equipment. I held this opinion until I actually started shooting and testing with the lens. The results and opinions are now mixed. About the Nikon 17-35mm f2.8D AF-S ED lens
The Nikon D100, the Nikon 70-200 VR lens, new computers, new hard drives, new audio gear; there was always something else to spend my money on. Plus I had the fine performing budget lens in the Nikon 18-35mm f3.5-4.5 lens that has served me quite well for the most part with both film and digital. The price of the 17-35 has dropped steadily from an initial price of CAN $2600 back at the turn of the century, down to a current price of about CAN $1850. The price decline is good, but it’s still a fair sized chunk of coin to try and find for a lens that I wanted, but did not necessarily need. These lenses tend to hold their value quite well, so I’d never paid much attention to the used market for a cheaper alternative. Then one fateful day a mint condition 17-35 lens came my way from a trusted source and I decided that enough time and waiting had passed, so I bit and bought it. It would be one of the final pieces of building an all AF-S kit of zoom lenses that now only needs the 28-70mm f2.8 lens to round out the trinity of three pro-caliber lenses, but in the meantime, I make do with the very cost-effective, but not necessarily stellar 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 AF-S, and the old professional stand-by, the 35-70mm f2.8. Since the 17-35mm lens has been around for several years, there won’t be much to say about the physical qualities of the lens, because the basic specs are already well known. It’s fair size, fair weight, and well built because it’s a fast f2.8 zoom lens built for professional use and abuse.
It has an AF-S lens motor for silent focusing with full time manual focus override. It has a 77mm filter diameter and it comes with a short flower petal style lens hood. Optically, this lens is considered by many to be first rate with film and digital and back in the early days of the 17-35 lens’ arrival in 1999 it could only be bought by those that also purchased the groundbreaking Nikon D1 D-SLR. Film users wanting the new lens had to wait for the demand by the new breed of digital photographers to subside before they could purchase the lens. A few users have even suggested that this is the first zoom lens to finally make prime lenses redundant. Pretty high praise and given its physical qualities, as well as cost, one would think that the lens must be must be worthy of such praise. Testing (Digital)I had originally only intended to test this lens with the D100, but when I finally got to doing the test shots, some aspects of the lens’ performance surprised me and compelled me to shoot off a few rolls of Fuji Provia 100F slide film to compare with other lenses of same or similar focal lengths. Specifically, the performance of this lens at 17mm and f2.8 was appallingly soft with a hazy, gauze-like look over the entire frame, almost like shooting through saran wrap. I didn’t expect super sharp results wide open, but neither did I expect such poor performance at this setting. This was looking at the RAW file prior to any sharpening being applied and while sharpening did improve matters, it was still disturbing to see so much softness. While you might wonder where on earth I might need to shoot at 17mm and f2.8 with a film camera (ever heard of dark church weddings and reception halls), such a setting can be a regular occurrence with digital because 17mm on film becomes merely 25.5mm on the D100 and again, not every event is held in venues with enough light to shoot at f5.6 and ISO 200 without flash (more like ISO 1600 and f2.8 for 1/30 of a second). It wasn’t a great start with the so-called legend. Another quirk didn’t do much to endear me to the lens either. The first time I mounted the lens on my D100 it squealed for a second before settling down into zooming and focusing properly. Somewhat surprised, but not shocked, as I had already read accounts of 17-35 users mounting it on recent D-SLR bodies and hearing the same high pitch squeal even worse than mine, as in the squealing does not stop. The cause has been blamed on an errant grounding cable within the lens and requires a service call to Nikon for fixing if the squeal is unbearable. For me, it isn’t because the squeal occurs infrequently and at low pitch, but I’m on notice now should I ever become lucky enough to upgrade to a D2X body. Fortunately, no such squeal with the older F100 film camera. Using the lens to take photos at events, professionally and personally (before doing all the test shots), with the D100, I was surprised by some photos coming out soft and with some even looking like there was a back focus problem. I chalked it up to my own user error in not focusing properly and then shooting with that focus error. I was also surprised by the lack of depth of field (DOF) from such a wide lens at larger apertures. You’d figure that at 17mm, whether film or digital, would offer generous DOF even at f2.8 or f4, but such was not the case and photos of groups with a modest difference in positioning would reveal that lack of DOF. I realized that this lens definitely needed to be stopped down to a minimum of f5.6 to retain adequate DOF throughout the focal length range. Which begs the question of what is the point of an expensive, large aperture lens that has to be stopped down to f5.6 anyway for best results? Yes, almost every lens performs at its best when stopped down two, or three-stops from maximum, but again, one doesn’t buy fast lenses just to use at pedestrian apertures. The reviews and comments I had read before purchase all indicated that I would receive good results throughout the range, so what gives? It’s possible that this lens is not a stellar sample, as early production runs of this lens are known to have had issues with QA as Nikon pumped out as many as they could to meet demand. Comparisons to 20 & 35 Prime and 18-35, 24-85, and 35-70 Zoom Lenses
Lenses used were the subject 17-35 lens, as well as the:
Main test subject were books in a bookshelf in my living room indirectly lit by daylight. I also took several hundred test photos indoors and outdoors and test results were consistent with what I have posted at the pages linked below. I did not post every single shot taken at every aperture setting. Rather I have posted shots at maximum aperture, as well as two, or three stops down where the sweet spot resides. For some lenses that meant f8, but for others, such as the consumer quality lenses, that meant f11. Currently, since I shoot almost all digital for my own work when using my 35mm-based system, I believe that the heavy emphasis on the digital tests is appropriate.
Chromatic Aberration Look at the white rail bar and notice the greenish halo that runs along the diagonal bar for the 17-35 shot versus minimal halo from the 20mm prime lens example.
After running through my digital tests, I know my sample isn’t a stinker per se, but it’s also not as good as the legend status I had come to expect. Perhaps my expectations were too high to begin with, but at the very widest focal lengths, this sample is not any better than the very modest cost Nikon 18-35mm f3.5-4.5 lens, or the Nikon 20mm prime lens. If anything, the results were worse than the low cost 18-35 lens. I don't have a huge amount of experience with wide-angle lenses, given my penchant for normal to telephoto focal lengths, so I wonder if maybe I was just too demanding after a very positive experience with the 70-200 f2.8 AF-S VR lens. I took it for granted that any professional Nikon zoom lens would be almost as good. I say "almost" because the 17-35 is an older design, so I'd give it a bit of leeway, but still, the results revealed a lens that is competent (except at the ultra wide 17mm setting), but not something to behold as the best thing since sliced bread. I know that good wide-angle SLR lenses are quite difficult to design and one of the reasons why Leica M rangefinder lenses are so good is that M cameras have no mirrors that designers have to work around. Some Leica lenses have their rear element incredibly close to the film plane compared to SLR lenses that need generous space for the mirror box. The 17-35 lens does get better, as one zooms longer, but even at 35mm, the prime lens blows it out of the water and the 18-35 appears sharper yet. The 17-35 does provide better performance than the venerable 35-70 f2.8 lens and the modest cost 24-85 AF-S at most of the focal lengths and apertures. If anything, my tests have shown that the 24-85 is actually quite a stinker at its widest focal lengths. While the 18-35 overachieves for the money, the 24-85 is very clearly (or rather not so clearly) showing its built-to-a-price origins. Over and over again, I saw the 18-35 hold its own against its much more expensive stable mate at all the common focal lengths and aperture settings available. For those on a beer budget without the cash for the 17-35 lens, the 18-35 is nothing to be ashamed of for getting sharp photos. If I had tested my sample of the 17-35 lens and compared it to my 18-35 lens prior to purchase, it would have been hard to justify based on optical quality; however, the build quality and AF-S motor are still very attractive features, but at a rather hefty premium. And of course, when you need that speed, the 18-35 won't be able to give it you throughout its zoom range whereas the 17-35 will, even if the quality is wanting. With
Film The film test shots were taken with my F100 SLR with the same setup and set of lenses as with the digital tests. After taking a quick gander at my three test rolls of Fuji Provia 100F slide film under an 8x loupe, I finally clued in that the legendary status of the 17-35 lens was from use with film. With film, the 17-35 turned in a near-prime lens like performance. I say "near," but we're splitting the hairs on the rear end of a gnat when I say that I see the prime lenses being a bit better than the 17-35 lens. Even the 24-85 lens wasn't bad with film, so it just goes to show you that digital capture, even with a rather old chip, as used in my D100, can be very demanding of wide-angle lens quality. It's just too bad that I don't shoot 35mm slide film for my own photography anymore. I still run through some rolls of color and B&W negative films for weddings, but I can't recall the last time I seriously shot 35mm slide film since buying the D100. Conclusion It's also amusing to hear of Canon users buying Contax to EOS adapters to work around the quality of Canon wide-angle lenses, but based on my experience with the 17-35 lens, I wonder if maybe Nikon digital users shouldn't consider such an option too. Keeping in mind that most of my testing was with a lowly 6 MP D100, imagine what horrors I'd find if I had a 12 MP D2X ;-) The 17-35 lens turned out to be a bit of an enigma for me. Merely satisfactory with digital capture, but seemingly outstanding with film. Alas, I'm not much interested in 35mm film, so I'm a bit chagrinned. I'd suggest that if you're into Nikon digital, test the sample of the 17-35 lens you want to purchase before committing to the still commanding price. September 21, 2005 - I received a few emails about how my 17-35 AF-S lens "must be" defective based on the test shots I posted in the review. It's possible, but others have indicated that their sample is not as sharp as they would like with their digital SLRs too, so I don't think that there is anything wrong per se with my lens. It just may be the nature of the beast and sample to sample variation. Sometimes you get lucky, as I did with the 70-200 lens and sometimes you don't. I was also asked why I didn't buy a 17-55 DX lens if I shoot mostly digital. I need to clarify that statement and say that I shoot mostly digital for me, but when I shoot for others, eg, weddings, I still shoot film. Thus I need lenses that can go back and forth between the two mediums. I don't do a lot of weddings, just a few here and there, but enough to not warrant the purchase of DX lenses, except maybe an ultra wide-angle zoom lens, such as the 12-24mm f4 AF-S. I should also note that while I consider all aspects of a lens' performance to be important, certain parameters are more important to me than others. I don't shoot into the sun very often, so flare is not usually an issue. I'm not heavy into architectural photos, so distortion control isn't a key concern either. Basically, I'm a sharpness nut. I like seeing details in my photos. I want to be able to count all the hairs on a fly's gluteus maximus. February 24, 2006 - I have to reiterate that this review is merely about my sample of the 17-35 lens and one should not expect that all other samples to perform similarly on digital at the wider focal lengths, at or near wide open aperture. My sample of the lens is possibly an early production sample that were known to have been afflicted by QA issues. New lenses are suppose to be just fine. Again, sample to sample variation and luck of the draw. Pros are known to test as many samples as possible before picking the best of the lot when they want to buy new lenses, so if possible test the prospective lens before purchase. |
|
Correspondence & About this website Copyright © 1998-2008 Edwin Leong |
|
 |
|
It’s
been remarked here and elsewhere that cameras and lenses are tools
and it’s really the creativity of the person using the tools that
produces a photograph. Buying a pro level piece of kit does not
mean that one suddenly becomes a professional, or is capable of
professional quality photography.
I
could say that the Nikon 17-35 lens, because it’s one that I’ve
desired for so long, will get my creative juices going. That I
will indeed go out and photograph more because it’s supposed to
be such an awesome piece of glass, but I’m not going to insult
your intelligence with that kind of drivel. I didn’t even use
the lens until a few weeks after buying it.
Some
lenses become legends within their own lifetime, so highly regarded
they become by their lucky users. The Nikon 17-35mm f2.8F ED AF-S
is one of those lenses. I’ve coveted this lens from a far for
many a year and though I’ve come up with enough money to buy one
several times over those years, something else always came up
to distract me from purchase.
All
the test shots were taken with the D100 D-SLR camera mounted to
an Arca Swiss B1 ball head and Gitzo 1345 tripod. Cable release
was utilized and several seconds separated each shot to keep vibration
in check. RAW files were processed to maximum quality JPEG files
with Nikon Capture 4.3.1. Sharpening was set to maximum in Nikon
Capture (100%, 3, 1), which I found appropriate for providing good
base image files to edit without being aggressive and harsh looking.
