D2X and the 17-35 AF-S f/2.8 ED-IF lens vs DX

[Theo_Ribeiro]

Adams, I've also had the AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8 and used it both on a Nikon D100, D2h and D2x. The Lens is really meant to go for war. It's absolutely solid (I always shoot adventure sports in rough conditions) auto-focus is really fast, It's almost wide enough with a DX sized sensor and one os the things I love about this lens in any camera combination is the closest focusing distance witch is really close.

The worst problem with this lens is Chromatic Aberration which is not really bad wide open but is there, although completely manageable, especially with Photoshop CS2 as with it you can correct for aberration in Nefs via Camera RAW, or scanned film or Jpgs with the lens correction filter.

The combo of this lens with a D2x, unless you need something wider is an indestructible, fast, responsive and heavy piece of equipment... Don't worry about DX whatever, the 12-24mm is so much weaker and fragile compared to this lens that if wide angle isn't an issue, I'd definitely go for this one. You should also check for the 17-55mm which I still hadn't a chance to try out but seams to be a good compromise...

[PaulChiu]

I send my 17-35 AFS, in service for 4+ years, in to replace the squeaking AFS motors.

Well, the squeak has stopped, but the motor noise is of a different type now. Very audible in a quiet setting like theatre. The 17-55 AFS is much quieter. You may not like how the "replaced AFS motor" sound. If you can live with the squeak, I would recommend you keeping it.

The replacement took about 3 weeks for me.

Paul

[RickNeibel]

I concur that the D2X/17-35 combination is my first choice in many situations. (I wish I used the 28-70 more, given the pain of lugging the beast around...) The image quality will absolutely not disappoint.

[DavidBabcock]

as another owner of both D2X and 17-35 who wholeheartedly agrees with all the above comments, as I got my lens (used) before the 17-55 existed I can't vouch for the -55. The 17-35 is just plain excellent, but if you're starting from stratch, the difference in dollars between the two may be small enough to really consider the 17-55 for that extra bit of reach, given that they weigh and cost the same (I think)

ps, the guy I work with has a 17-35 also and his squeaks, I would guess that its from being in fine dust type environments (he spend some time in Latin America a few years back) , so if you're looking at used, it may be a very good idea to see a new one in a store to listen attentively to it to compare to a used one.

[Tim_Adams]

The verdict is in; if I wind up buying what I'm thinking now of buying, I won't second guess the 17-35. Thanks to everyone for providing feedback.

[Theo_Ribeiro]

I never had any problem with my 17-35mm squeaking... Maybe I got lucky but it wasn't for lack of chances, the dust won't necessarily make the lens squeak. Mine has gone through months of working in dusty environment shooting car rally competitions and adventure races even in desert spot locations. The worst I got with the 17-35mm was some dust scratching noise when I turned the zoom ring after being for quite a while shooting in the middle of dust clouds (that's what rallies are about) this lens has performed flawlessly! It's definitely worth the weight, bulk and price if you are going to abuse it.