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

Tim_Adams · #1 09-07-2005, 08:43 PM

This will be the last of three posts related to my mulling over of a D2X purchase.

I'm thinking of purchasing the D2X with the 17-35 AF-S f/2.8 ED-IF Nikon lens, which will be on the camera most of the time. That's going to come to 25.5 - 52.5 with the crop factor (except in high speed mode), which should be about right. The DX series looks appealing, but I want something faster than f4.

However, the 17-35 AF-S f/2.8 ED-IF dates to the film era. I'm wondering how it compares in day to day use with the DX series on a digital body like the D2X. And are they about equally durable?

Any experiences to share will be appreciated.

Dave_Honor · #2 09-07-2005, 09:14 PM

Tim
The lens is just fine for the D2X. Yes there is a little more coverage than the "digital" lenses but so what...it is a sharp and fast lens. Durability? Unless you plan to drive nails with it or use it as a car jack it should hold up as well as any other Nikon lens, and that means very well and for a long time.
I had a 17-35 and used it like a normal lens. I sold it for the 17-55 which gave me a little more reach and is optimized for the digital frame but I think the 17-35 was a little sharper in the corners. Fast focus, trouble free history. The 17-35 is a little heavier than the 17-55 but VERY durable.
You know, the 17-35 isn't that old. When you say "film era" you have to go back a lot farther. I've still got NIKKOR lenses I purchased in the 60's that work perfectly and are tack sharp so age is meaningless if you take care of them.
Go for the D2X and the 17-35 f2.8 as a package, you will not be let down or behind the "times'. Remember, it is only a tool and what you Do with it is more important than what it Is.

RobertEdwards · #3 09-07-2005, 09:55 PM

IIRC the 17-35mm was developed for the D1. Nikon realised the DX size chip made the 20-35mm too narrow a zoom range. Optically it's well suited to the D2x as Bjørn Rørslett writes at the bottom of this page:

"Thus, AFS 17-55 DX does have slightly more CA at 17 mm than the legendary AFS 17-35 Nikkor, the latter of which is non-DX."

-- Robert.

JimBoard · #4 09-07-2005, 10:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This will be the last of three posts related to my mulling over of a D2X purchase.

I'm thinking of purchasing the D2X with the 17-35 AF-S f/2.8 ED-IF Nikon lens, which will be on the camera most of the time. That's going to come to 25.5 - 52.5 with the crop factor (except in high speed mode), which should be about right. The DX series looks appealing, but I want something faster than f4.

However, the 17-35 AF-S f/2.8 ED-IF dates to the film era. I'm wondering how it compares in day to day use with the DX series on a digital body like the D2X. And are they about equally durable?

Any experiences to share will be appreciated.

[/ QUOTE ]

I shoot a D2X & D2H with a 17-35 regularly. Do not be put off by it's lack of "DX" designation. The 17-35 produces exceptional results with the D2X. It is my "go to" lens and is used more often than any other except perhaps the 28-70. I do not expect you will be disappointed.

GrahamWelland · #5 09-08-2005, 07:42 AM

One of the things I noticed different between the 17-35 and the 17-55DX was that the new lens doesn't squeek after you've had it a while. My 17-35 was notorious for making a squeek noise when focusing and it's a very common 'ailment'. I won't say problem because it works fine but it can be distracting. I believe it's a dust issue but it is quite common (as in 3 out of 3 firends of mine using this lens also had the same experience).

Optically I don't see much difference but the 17-35 & 28-70 lenses held the bar pretty high for sharpness and contrast.

GuyWalder · #6 09-08-2005, 08:20 AM

Graham,
add me to the list, my 17-35 squeaks as well! At least when it racks right through the focus range (easy enough to avoid). I have used it on the D2X a little, and it looks fine.
I also second Dave's comment, i use a number of old MF lenses on my D2X, and they provide all the performance with none of the cost ;-) (this assumes of course that you are happy to focus them yourself, in particular there are some stunning bargains to be if you are after a long telephoto)
Guy

Mike_Guilbault · #7 09-08-2005, 08:56 AM

I have to agree with most comments about the 17-35 - an awesome lens that I use second only to my 28-70. The one comment I don't agree with is the squeeking. I may be the lucky one, but I've never heard a peep out of this lens and it has performed flawlessly. Focus is fast, accurate and it's simply a pleasure to work with.