|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
3
|
12101
|
Wed August 22, 2007
|
|
 |
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
Average Rating
|
|
100% of reviewers
|
None indicated
|
8.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
·
|
>
|
|
|
Author
|
|
David_Buzzard
Premium Lifetime Member
Registered: July 2002
Location: Whistler, BC, Canada
Posts: 1787
|
|
Review Date: Tue June 5, 2007
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid?: None indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, fast focusing, good range
|
|
Cons:
|
prone to back focusing on digital bodies. Heavy and expensive. Surpassed in digital by the 17-55 DX
|
|
Is a really good lens, but better suited to film use than digital.
August 23rd,
Am I ever glad I held onto this lens.
|
|
|
|
James Haba
Premium Lifetime Member
Registered: November 2002
Location: Chicago
Posts: 281
|
|
Review Date: Mon August 13, 2007
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid?: None indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, focus is very quick
|
|
Cons:
|
Expensive
|
|
Loved it on my F100 . . . lost some of the punch for me when I went digital, but I still use it alot. Also seems to get a lot of dust internally. The only one of my lenses to do this.
------------------------------
James Haba
www.2020Communications.com
|
|
|
|
|
John_W_Peterson
Basic Member
Registered: May 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Wed August 22, 2007
|
Would you recommend the product? Yes |
Price you paid?: None indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent full frame ultra-wide zoom
|
|
Cons:
|
Big and Bulky.
|
|
Many would conclude that this lens is obsolete, now that we have the Nikon 17-55 f2.8. I would argue that this lens has two specific virtues that cause it to remain sought after, and useful.
First, of course, as a full frame lens (unlike the 17-55) it can be used both with full frame Nikon cameras such as the F6 / F100, and also with (using an adapter) full frame canon digital cameras such as the 5D and 1Ds series cameras where it excells. I use mine with the canon 5D and find that it produces significantly less color fringing, less flare, less vignetting wide open, and better contrast in my images then the competing canon lens's. (I have not yet tried the Mark II revision of the Canon 16-35 f2.8). If Nikon brings us a full frame digital, we shall see it again in wide use in the nikon world, but for now it's a great lens for the FF canon's.
Second, mounted on a DX crop nikon digital it actually beats the 17-55 in the specific category of flare, as has been I think widely noted. The 17-55 flares very badly whe shooting into the ligth, while the 17-35 resists this problem as well as can be imagined.
Problems: Many have reported - but I have not experienced - problems with dust getting in the lens (hence causing flaring). Apparently the weather seals are somwehat weak compared to other nikors, or perhaps the focus/ zoom mechanism of the lens creates a more substantial vacum pulling air and dust into the lens as it works. I have not yet had this problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Powered by: ReviewPost PHP vB3 Enhanced
Copyright 2006 All Enthusiast, Inc.
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:35 AM.
|
|
Advertise Here! - Contact Us!
|
|
