According provided by lens Nikon ED AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm 1: 2.8D SWM IF Aspherical many thanks to photographer Dima Glota, his website can be viewed at http://dmitriyglota.com/.
Nikon ED AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm 1: 2.8D SWM IF Aspherical
Nikon ED AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm 1: 2.8D SWM IF Aspherical (abbreviated as Nikon 17-35 / 2.8D) - replacement for an older and equally successful lens Nikon AF NIKKOR 20-35mm 1: 2.8D.
Nikon 17-35 / 2.8D is a fast wide-angle zoom lens from Nikon. 17mm focal length provides 104 ° field of view diagonal framewhich is very widespread in real life. Nikon 17-35 / 2.8D refers to professional lineup Nikon Nikkor lenses, and therefore you can expect excellent build and image quality from it. Nikon 17-35 / 2.8D is Nikon listed NPS (Nikon Professional Services).
Nikon 17-35 / 2.8D has gold ring on the case, near the front lens, which is a sign of a top-class Nikon Nikkor lens. In this case, the lens fully deserves the right to wear this golden border.
The range of 17-20 mm can be safely attributed to an ultra-wide range of focal lengths. Unfortunately, there are very, very few autofocus super wide widths for full-format cameras. You can count them on the fingers:
Nikkor F for SLR cameras:
- Nikon 14 mm 1: 2.8D AF
- Nikon 16 mm 1: 2.8D Fisheye AF
- Nikon 18 mm 1: 2.8D AF
- Nikon 20 mm 1:2.8 AF
- Nikon 20 mm 1: 2.8D AF
- Nikon 20 mm 1: 1.8G N AF S
- Nikon 8-15 mm 1: 3.5-4.5E Fisheye AF S
- Nikon 14-24 mm 1: 2.8G N AF S
- Nikon 16-35 mm 1: 4G VR N AF S
- Nikon 17-35 mm 1: 2.8D AF S
- Nikon 18-35 mm 1: 3.5-4.5D AF
- Nikon 18-35 mm 1: 3.5-4.5G AF S
- Nikon 20-35 mm 1: 2.8D AF
Nikkor Z for mirrorless cameras:
The choice among Nikon Nikkor wide-angle lenses is very complex and specific. Typically, the Nikon 17-35 / 2.8D is positioned as a reporting shirk and is considered to be something between the professional Nikon 14-24 / 2.8G and Nikon 16-35 / 4G. For many photographers, there is often a difficult choice between two lenses: the Nikon 17-35 / 2.8D and the Nikon 16-35 / 4G. Unfortunately, this choice is really difficult and I will not risk anything to advise on this issue now.
Nikon ED AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm 1: 2.8D SWM IF Aspherical
Main technical characteristics of Nikon ED AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm 1: 2.8D SWM IF Aspherical:
| Review Instance Name | Nikon ED AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm 1: 2.8D SWM IF Aspherical 434778 |
| Basic properties |
|
| Front Filter Diameter | 77 mm, metal thread for filters |
| Focal length | 17-35 mm EGF for Nikon DX cameras is 25.5-52.5 mm |
| Zoom ratio | 2.06 X (usually just talking about XNUMXx zoom) |
| Designed by | for film cameras |
| Number of aperture blades | 9 rounded petals |
| Tags | focusing distance in meters and feet, focal length values for 17, 20, 24, 28, 35 mm, aperture setting mark (it is also a bayonet mount mark), hood attachment mark, aperture values, 'L' mark for ring fixing aperture control |
| Diaphragm | from F / 2.8 over the entire range of focal lengths to F / 22. The lens has an aperture ring (Non-G - lens type) |
| MDF (minimum focusing distance) | 0.28 m over the entire range of focal lengths, maximum magnification ratio 1: 4.6 |
| The weight | 745 g |
| Optical design | 13 elements in 10 groups. The scheme includes:
The image of the optical circuit is clickable. |
| Lens hood | Nikon HB-23 |
| Manufacturer country | Made in japan |
| Period | From July 1999 to the present day (at least until the summer of 2017) |
| Price |
It turns out that the Nikon 17-35 / 2.8D was introduced back in July 1999 and was intended primarily for film cameras. Of the classic Nikon digital cameras at the time, only the Nikon D1 existed, introduced just a month before this lens. Nikon 17-35 / 2.8D has not been updated for a very long time and I would very much like to see a new worthy replacement for it. For example, a similar lens from the Canon camp - Canon Zoom Lens EF 17-35mm 1: 2.8 L USM was introduced in the spring of 1996 and later had two replacements / additions - Canon Zoom Lens EF 16-35mm 1: 2.8 L USM (December 2001) and Canon Zoom Lens EF 16-35mm 1: 2.8 L II USM (April 2007).
Nikon ED AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm 1: 2.8D SWM IF Aspherical
Assembly
Nikon 17-35 / 2.8D is made in Japan only. It feels very nice and weighty, its weight is over 700 grams. Nikon 17-35 / 2.8D uses large 77mm professional diameter filters. The lens barrel is almost entirely made of metal, with metal thread for light filters and a metal bayonet mount. The workmanship is at a very high level. Nikon 17-35 / 2.8D feels the same 'tank' as Nikon AF Nikkor 20-35mm 1: 2.8D.
Unfortunately, there is no accurate data on the dust and moisture protection of the lens. There is no rubber gasket on the lens side, which usually indicates lens protection. Therefore, most likely, the lens is not protected from dust or moisture.
It is very nice that the focus ring and zoom ring are rubberized. Unfortunately, Nikon lenses and cameras have one serious sore - swelling and peeling of the rubber bands. The same disease was struck and the lens that came to my review - the gum on the zoom ring is very swollen and peeled off. Nikon should blush and ask all users for forgiveness for such a puncture with a professional lens. The gum of the zoom swells only with time, and the gum of the focus ring continues to serve without such deformations.
On the case there is a bayonet mount mark (it is a mark for adjusting the aperture control ring) and a mark for quick installation of the hood. The lens uses an HB-23 plastic lens hood exactly the same as Nikon DX 12-24 / 4G, Nikon DX 10-24 / 3.5-4.5G, Nikon 18-35 / 3.5-4.5D and Nikon 16-35 / 4G. The lens hood is fixed in special grooves located near the front lens of the lens. The hood can be installed in the opposite direction for transportation. In this position, access to the zoom and focus ring is practically not lost.
When changing the focal length, the rear lens moves in the middle of the lens body like a pump - it draws in and pushes out air. This behavior of the rear lens is called 'vacuum cleaner effect', which can increase the amount of dust that accumulates in the camera. Unfortunately, the Nikon 17-35 / 2.8D still suffers from dust clogging the lenses. I remember how Dima, the owner of the lens, bought this Nikon 17-35 / 2.8D in almost perfect condition and after half a year of active use, he began to complain about dust on the internal lenses of the lens.
Nikon ED AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm 1: 2.8D SWM IF Aspherical
Diaphragm
Diaphragm lens consists of 9 rounded petalswhich form a fairly even hole. Diaphragm closes to F / 22 over the entire range of focal lengths.
Maximum diaphragm F / 2.8 is available over the entire range of focal lengths. F / 2.8 is exactly 1 stop (2 times) more than F / 4, which is used with a similar Nikon 16-35 / 4G lens.
On covered apertures, the lens gives an effect of 18 ray star.
Nikon ED AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm 1: 2.8D SWM IF Aspherical
Focusing
In ideal conditions the Nikon 17-35 / 2.8D focuses quietly thanks to 'SWM'-motor (Silent Wbird Motor - quiet wave motor) and refers to the lens'AF S'type (with built-in motor focusing), and therefore it will automatically focus on any Nikon digital SLR camera.
Auto Focus Speed - high. While working on cameras Nikon D610, Nikon D700 и Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro I had no complaints about the accuracy, tenacity and speed of auto focus.
During focusing, the front and rear lenses remain stationary, as the lens uses internal focusthat is indicated on the case by the letters'IF'-'Iinternal Focus' - 'Inner Focus'.
When changing the focal length the front lens of the lens wave-wise moves back and forth and rotates around its axis. Due to the successful design, all movements occur inside the lens barrel and we can assume that it uses internal zoom (does not change its size when changing the focal length). It turns out that if you install a light filter on the lens, then visually the lens will not change its size either during focusing or during the change in focal length, therefore, any filters can be used without problems, for example polarizing.
The minimum focusing distance is 28 cm over the entire range of focal lengths and, by 35 mm, allows you to shoot with a maximum magnification ratio of 1: 4.6, which is quite good for this kind of lens.
Nikon 17-35 / 2.8D has a window with distance scale in meters and feet. There is no depth of field scale, as well as marks for working in the infrared spectrum. In manual focusing mode, the ring rotates 100 degrees, when reaching the extreme positions it does not rest against it, but continues to slide without affecting focusing. The focus ring remains fixed during autofocus. Due to the fact that the lens is quite 'chubby', manual aiming is simple and pleasant.
On the lens housing you can find focus switch 'M / A - M'. In the 'M / A' position, auto focus works with constant manual focus priority. The 'M / A' mode is very convenient and useful - for manual focusing or focus correction, you do not need to additionally switch the lens to the 'M' mode. As soon as you start focusing manually using the 'M / A' mode, the auto focus is immediately turned off, and the lens continues to listen to your hands until you press the focus activation button again.
Some rumors and problems. They say that Nikon 17-35 / 2.8D, like Nikon 28-70 / 2.8D и Nikon 80-200 / 2.8D MKIV use the same focus motor for focusing. Perhaps some more Nikon AF-I lenses use the same motor. These lenses are of approximately the same release time and are the first professional lenses with a built-in SWM motor. Many people know that the main problem with miraculous Nikon 80-200 / 2.8D MKIV just the problems with the focus motor. In the case of Nikon 17-35 / 2.8D, as with Nikon 28-70 / 2.8D the same negative symptoms are noticeable - over time, the focusing motor begins to 'whistle' and becomes unusable. Unfortunately, the first signs of this disease are observed in the lens from this review. Talking to one of the familiar craftsmen, I found out that the problem is due to the fact that these motors are very sensitive to pollution and from the slightest presence of dust or dirt they begin to 'whistle' or simply stop working. This ailment is usually very easy to fix. Note that with a careful attitude, it is unlikely that anyone will encounter this problem in real life.
Nikon ED AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm 1: 2.8D SWM IF Aspherical
Compatibility and Features
The lens has a manual aperture ring. To be able to control the value aperture from camera or for automatic installation aperture on modern central control valves, you need to turn the control ring to the value F / 22 and fix it with a special lever with the red letter 'L', which is located to the right of the marks aperture. If this is not done, then on a number of cameras, the display will display an error - 'fEE' (ring is not installed aperture) Some cameras having diaphragm rheostatallow you to control the aperture using the ring aperturebut only in metering modes exposure 'M' and 'A'. You can read more about this issue in the section on Non-G Lenses. Ring aperture rotates with clicks, the values of F / 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22 are marked on it, it is impossible to set an intermediate value between pairs of numbers using the aperture ring. Intermediate values can only be set using the camera menu. Nikon 17-35 / 2.8D is one of the few lenses that has a red letter 'L' ('Lock' - 'lock'). I also saw such a letter only at Nikon AF Nikkor 24-85mm 1: 2.8-4 D IF Aspherical Macro (1: 2).
EGF lens for Nikon DX cameras is 25.5-52.5. I don’t see much point in buying Nikon 17-35 / 2.8D for Nikon DX cropped cameras. Who is looking for a fast zoom for Nikon cameras, I advise you to look away Tokina AT-X 116 PRO SD 11-16mm F2.8 (IF) DX II (second version with focus motor) or Tokina AT-X 116 PRO SD 11-16mm F2.8 (IF) DX (first version without focus motor) or Tokina AT-X PRO SD 11-20mm F2.8 (IF) DX. Unfortunately, there is no complete analogue of the Nikon 17-35/2.8D for Nikon DX cameras. The only native professional wide for Nikon DX cameras is Nikon DX AF-S Nikkor 12-24mm 1: 4G ED SWM IF Aspherical.
A list of all Nikon DX series lenses can be found. here. The optical design of all Nikon DX lenses can be viewed here.
Nikon ED AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm 1: 2.8D SWM IF Aspherical
Image quality
In the center of the frame, the Nikon 17-35 / 2.8D is sharp at any aperture value, even at F / 2.8. Professionals can easily notice that the lens has rather weak angles and edges of the frame when used on open apertures. But it’s worth covering the aperture, as the sharpness at the edges aligns, and the sharpness in the center of the frame becomes prohibitive. To my surprise, the lens copes quite well with chromatic aberration. Of course it is a pity that there is no escape from strong distortion by 17 mm. Also, at 17 mm focal length and an open aperture, the lens gives tangible vignetting. When using filters of normal thickness, vignetting does not deteriorate.
Nikon 17-35 / 2.8D tolerates side and backlight well, gives a contrast image with a minimum of parasitic flare. And in general, the image quality is up to standard, but still, I would like a little better indicators from the owner of the gold ring.
Pictures for review shared by the owner of the lens. More photos and spherical panoramas shot on this lens can be found at Dima https://www.izakayasushilounge.com.
You can download RAW source files at this link (10 files in the '.NEF' format, 280 MB). All photos were shot on Nikon D610. Then I will try to add more pictures.
Nikon ED AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm 1: 2.8D SWM IF Aspherical
My experience
I sometimes borrow his Nikon 17-35 / 2.8D from Dima for indoor shooting, for me this lens acts as an excellent reporter for working in 'close combat'. I'm considering Nikon 17-35 / 2.8D as an alternative (all of a sudden!) For Nikon N AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm 1: 2.8G ED NanoCrystalCoat SWM IF Aspherical. Frames with Nikon 17-35 / 2.8D are much more interesting than with Nikon 24-70 / 2.8G, while Nikon 17-35 / 2.8D allows you to use a much wider field of view and at the same time you can use it to take pictures in standard range using 35 mm.
In general, it’s much more interesting and useful for me to have a Nikon 17-35 / 2.8D and a Nikon 70 (80) -200 / 2.8 in a kit than a set of Nikon 24-70 / 2.8G and a Nikon 70 (80) -200 /2.8. The range of focal lengths of 24-70 mm can be arbitrarily called standard, which does not give any original picture, which is possible with a shorter (less than 24 mm) and longer (more than 70 mm) focal length. Ultimately, from Nikon 24-70 / 2.8G, the viewer does not have the so-called WOW! Effect.
I am delighted with the Nikon 17-35 / 2.8D and I am saddened only by the fact that it will not be updated to '16 -35 / 2.8 ', where 16mm is much more interesting than 17mm, while the eternal problem of choosing between Nikon 17-35 / 2.8D and Nikon 16-35 / 4G.
Nikon ED AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm 1: 2.8D SWM IF Aspherical
Prices
Actual lens prices are available see here, or in the price block below:
Nikon ED AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm 1: 2.8D SWM IF Aspherical
Enlightenment of the front lens Nikon ED AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm 1: 2.8D SWM IF Aspherical
Comments on this post do not require registration. Anyone can leave a comment. Many different photographic equipment can be found on AliExpress.
Nikon DX AF-S Nikkor 12-24mm 1: 4G ED SWM IF Aspherical and Nikon ED AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm 1: 2.8D SWM IF Aspherical
Results
The Nikon 17-35 / 2.8D is a one-of-a-kind native high-aperture ultra-wide zoom for Nikon FX full-frame cameras that can use classic light filters. The lens has a very high build quality, internal fast focusing, a very sharp picture in the center of the frame, conventionally an internal zoom, and it is pleasant to work with. Nikon 17-35 / 2.8D I really do not regret to call it a real professional lens. Unfortunately Nikon 17-35 / 2.8D, like Nikon 20-35 / 2.8D, is a fairly old development, and many are looking forward to updating this highly reliable lens.
Material prepared Arkady Shapoval. Training/Consultations | Youtube | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter | Telegram
“The Nikon 17-35 / 2.8D is a one-of-a-kind super wide aperture zoom for full-frame cameras that can use classic filters.” - not the only one ... Canon 16-35 f / 2.8L also supports conventional filters (82mm). It might be worth clarifying: "a one-of-a-kind super wide aperture zoom for Nikon full format cameras"
Well, it is logical that this was implied. For those who do not follow the context, fixed.
Good review!
I completely agree about a bunch of 17-35 + 80-200.
On the d7100 I use tokina 124+ sigma 50-150 \ 2.8, which basically is the same for DX. As for me, this bunch is just a travel bomb, unless you take the weight into account, of course, but it doesn’t bother me personally, but it will probably be difficult for madam.
20-35 is preferable, especially with regard to picture quality ...
Are you again with your nostalgia for the “old people” ?.
No nostalgia ... Put on one, take a few shots, then another, the same thing ... You don't need to be a specialist here ...
Not experts can be wrong :) Although, everyone can be wrong.
Sucked out of a finger. there were more than 5 pieces 17-35 and pieces 3 20-35, both were taken simultaneously for shooting. 17-35 on the open is much sharper, especially around the edges. on f4 at 20mm 17-35 like a razor, which can not be said about 20-35.
Comrade Fotika! The photo has many quality criteria, not only sharpness at the edges ...
oh, yes, how I forgot about the magical volume and 20 mm bokeh especially. the lens is glass and metal, not more. tool. Do you want creativity? buy leku, zais and a bunch of great lenses. I have not seen a single client who would like a soap lens with an interesting pattern. 20-35 is a good old lens, not a big one.
In addition to the above, there are color rendition, contrast, etc. Do not exaggerate the topic, 20-35 is an excellent sharp lens if this quality is the main one for you ...
those. Designer fools and make lenses with obviously worse performance?
Would you like to say that 20-35 have "color rendering, contrast, etc." it's better?
As an alternative, 24-70 certainly wins, here I completely agree ... In the picture, 24-70 can only compete with 17-55 ...
To your set, Arkady, I would add 35-70 \ 2,8D ... And the focal points are closed, and the picture is wonderful, and, as you write, the WOW effect is present ...
I don’t see the meaning in 35-70.
The master's business ... I see, especially in the picture, a great alternative to fixes ...
I have long understood that you are from the ranks of the “PR department 35-70 / 2,8”.
Arkady, no PR, you are with your "modern technologies", I am with my "old men" ... Anyway, everyone has his own ...
“The old horse will not spoil the furrow” ... You are also an 80-200 lover, so you appreciate the old optics ...
I recently learned new information on 35-70 / 2.8D from repairmen. It turns out that all lenses are susceptible to fungus, except for those that start with the number 7. The reason is simple - for one of the lens glues, organic glue was used, which eventually “blooms”. Therefore, the old horse in this case also spoils the furrow. These lenses include about 80% of all 35-70 / 2,8 (d). And this sore cannot be treated in any way, only by replacing the gluing of the lenses.
OH I'm afraid, I'm afraid ... I looked ... I have 8 ... What to do now, I don't know ...
The fact of the matter is that at 7 and 8 - the cat cried :) From now on you will know that the 35-70 has the most serious jambs and may reduce your ardor for the PR of this lens :)
I wrote to you, Arkady, that you need to buy from trusted sources ... We don't sell versions less than 7 ...
Unfortunately, I do not believe in this.
There is a familiar seller, orders from Japan ... We are here, believe me ...
And for PR 35-70 and so on. I have no reason ... I do not sell it ... I just see how a lot of people are engaged, to put it mildly, x..nay, dealing with the resolution of their multi-megapixel matrices, following the lead of marketing and laying out their money ...
Well, think that for many 35-70 / 2.8 it is generally pointless, since for a whole horde of amateur Nikon cameras it does not have a focus motor, and in 2015 manual zoom is somehow not that. Therefore, of course, many have to get out, look for all kinds of Tamrons 17-50 and so on. Yes, and I had my personal 35-70 / 2.8, and over time, its piston nature began to annoy me. On the other hand, the picture is sometimes even better than Nikon's fifty dollars.
Arkady, we are not talking about those who did not even bother to buy a carcass with a motor ... And about the piston essence - it's even cool (for those who played the trombone ...)
Why, the non-motorized d40 gave such colors that my mother did not grieve and she was with me for a long time. Many consider the signal handler for d40 to be a cut higher than that of d100, d70, d70s and d100. And the d3000 is the latest CCD camera. And after you have all the human lenses with a regular ring, using the ram is uncomfortable. Therefore, your 35-70 defense collapses with every step.
Well, Arkady, okay, don't worry so much, it's already Friday night ...
Well, we switched from theme to Friday night :)
To me, too, once the D50 seemed to be the standard of color ...
Having once bought a good copy of 35-70 \ 2,8D, you don't have to bother with the problem of buying fixes 35-50, on the crop it closes all portrait focal points at all ... but he has no competitors in the picture ...
Nikon D200 does not have a fine focus adjustment function. Pro closes “all portrait focal points” is very ambiguous. At least there is no most classic 135 mm ether. With each new comment, the credibility of your recommendations decreases.
Arkady, I do not impose my point of view on anyone ... You have some kind of youthful maximalism, you strive to crush the interlocutor, it is not good ... Well, you are a young guy, maybe this is permissible for you ...
There is no need to comment on the absence of RF over 70, this is a no brainer ... Some kind of funny conversation ...
Information about the glue does not indicate its effectiveness. In a 35-70 lens, two groups of lenses are glued together. No fungus was detected in the glued joints when cleaned. The fungus was found chaotically on the lenses. On the adhesives from the front group there was a fog measuring 2x3 mm, and in the other lens near the rear group on the adhesive between the lenses there were tiny dusty bubbles measuring less than one millimeter. The fungus spreads further. Preserve the natural area, keep it for long periods of time without irritation (ultraviolet light kills the fungus) and prevent the fungus from growing on wet hands (the fungus expands with spores). The filthy glue gives a lot of smoke.
“... but it will not plow deeply” (c) Full version of the saying.
Yes yes :)
It is not necessary to plow deeply, but as much as necessary.
Anonymous, and if necessary deeply?
Tamron also has the newest shirik Tamron SP 15-30mm f / 2.8 Di VC USD ...
No joke - I absolutely agree about the picture in favor of 17-35 versus 24-70 :) That's why I took it, it's a pity only two things: that the review was so “late” (I had to think of it with my mind) and that the lens was “sick” (well, two nothing, we'll get to Peter and adjust it, hopefully)
By the way (or not by the way) in a similar situation on the crop (12-24 versus 17-55) IMHO won 17-55 (meaning that everything that is wider - Tokina 116) And the review at 12-24 appeared :)
Thanks to Dima, thanks to Arkady.
Arkady, I shoot mostly at wide. The carcass is already old, it's time to take a new one.
According to the last two reviews, I did not see the difference in width between the FF and the crop. And the price of FF bites and they are heavy.
Does it make sense to switch to FF?
No money - no reason to move.
Here, this wording! I have been looking for a verbal formula for the transition to FF for a long time, but you found it!
Nonsense! D700 + a series of lenses D and happiness will be cheap for you.
why nonsense?
FF is not only more expensive but also LARGE and HEAVY.
I got the opinion that FF is preferable for portraiturers and not very relevant for shirikov. In this regard, a question was asked.
nonsense, because the specified bundle does not cost that much money, and FF is preferable to crop anyway.
wrong, not in any.
The glass is very multitasking, both for reporting and for landscape, so portraits can be shot at 35mm 2.8. I bought it for 25t in a pawnshop, in a new condition, eventually realizing how lucky I was. Once I shot them mixed fights, when I got home, there was no joy, everything was in focus, and it makes the picture interesting and original. I have not yet scratched the scratches, I use them carefully. I completely recommend this glass. This is the second glass after 85 1.4, which really pleases me, paired with d800).
“Once I filmed mixed battles for them” Tsikavo was surprised at the photos. And what about the focal point, will it be the originality (from 28 to 40 mm)? І allow me to sleep, why sense vikoristovuvati be more than 300 mm?
The photos in the review are wonderful. The lens is good. I completely agree with Arkady that a bunch of shirik + telephoto is wow. And 24-70 is commonplace. On the widths and televisions, almost any frame looks monumental, but in the range of 24-70 you need to move your brain cool to get a standing frame.
Trekhsotkovich is categorical as always (I remembered the story with Fujik, vilification of Soviet optics, etc.) ... Well, let's say, you have to use any lens to wiggle your brains. Arcadia 24ke, 70ke, the mass of fifty dollars, 28ke, 35ke?
Alexander, why have you stopped making money with photography?
Yuri, I am a young and not stupid guy, and I see trends in the modern world, and the profession of a photographer in this world is gradually leaving, and will soon completely disappear into oblivion. Selfies and photo stocks are not asleep, so to speak. Selfies have already been replaced by a wedding photographer, and a portrait one too, and any company can purchase a ready-made photo for $ 0.01 on any photo stock on any subject. So why deceive yourself and do utopian affairs.
Answer to Yuri. I am a young and not stupid guy, and I see trends in the modern world, and the profession of a photographer in this world is gradually leaving, and will soon completely disappear into oblivion. Selfies and photo stocks are not asleep, so to speak. Selfies have already been replaced by a wedding photographer, and a portrait one too, and any company can purchase a ready-made photo for $ 0.01 on any photo stock on any subject. So why deceive yourself and do utopian affairs?
funny conclusion, but still wrong.
the photographer's profession will only shrink to a somewhat smaller size from those to which it is now "bloated".
Someone fills the drains.
Lynx, yes, stock photographers will remain, but I think the selfie will still sweep ALL, even the good and best photographers.
Nope
Eh, trehsotkovich, trehsotkovich, replace with semisotkovich ... A photographer is not a profession, it is a state of mind ... If it is not there, then it is really time to switch to a selfie ...
Govnofotografov, whom darkness is right now, will sweep away, and expensive photographers, of whom there are only a few, fortunately, will not replace consumer goods from drains.
Find a replacement for the photos on the stocks of Lucas or Troyanovsky and these are just the first photographers who came to my mind from the CIS or say Peter Lindberg or Mario Testino which photo stock will replace?
The problem is that we have a lot of shit photographers who think that they are photographers and who imposed on the masses that they are photographers, and they are just pressing the camera button. And there are dozens of photographers, only a few cool ones.
Dozens ... units ... What category do you yourself belong to?
I agree 100 times.
As I understand it, you are talking about bombs, well, so what do they care? Will sweep and sweep, maybe they will do something more useful.
I think if for work, it is better to dig up and take 16-35 f / 4 VR.
And if for himself, then Tokina will come down.
Have you seen 20-35? Here, as indeed everywhere else, theorists gather ... This is the best option ...
probably 20-35 is better and 16-35, you want to crap the Japanese? or impose your opinion? If you think so, the old Mazda 626 is better than the new one? or is the old Lexus better than the new one? also the Japanese do ...
and you must definitely remember, or even call all theorists, subtly (greedily) hint that I’m shooting one of these for a masterpiece of 1-20 and you have everything in it, not a lens. reminds me of a friend of mine who unsuccessfully married, and now don’t know how to brag about it)))
Tovarisch !!! Take it easy! I didn't mean anything like that! And it would be nice for you to learn Russian, it hurts to read your comments ...
Just had:
24.07.2015 in 10: 43
But when I poked your nose about the fungus at 35-70 / 2,8D, you turned the conversation on Friday evening. When fotika explained about 17-35 and 20-35, you had no arguments :)
Why are you guys so aggressive? Keep it simple ...
are we aggressive re-read the story first, do not forget the validol))))
Well, Aleksey DV, first answer / explain your own words on 24.07.2015 at 10:43, and do not move out with the phrases “he who has eyes, let him see” (in further discussion 17-35 and 20-35. And for now, here is the level of aggression at zero (Zero guarantees this).
when the arguments end, the transition to personality begins. Alas Rus. language is not my native language. an error can be made on this.
If there were arguments, there would be comments ... But only emotions, no more ...
Alexey DV on Radozhiv has long been praising the line of 'D' lenses, especially the 35-70 / 2,8D. As practice has shown, this is his opinion, and in this case it is useless to argue or prove something.
she just sometimes disgusted to read this. people who do not have experience in buying (choosing) lenses then begin to retell this kind of demagogy. I have nothing against old optics. but technology is the future. just the majority buying optics for 2000 cu and above, do not know how to use it correctly.
Well, what such majority buys “optics for 2000 USD and above?” Well, you are certainly using it correctly.
Good morning, Arkady! Yes, this is my opinion, not groundless, I must say ... You yourself adhere to it, but for some reason you carefully hide it ...
there are no bad lenses. there are bad bio-robots that are unclear why they buy photographic equipment
I agree ... There are also a lot of incompetent sellers ...
I think many readers would be very interested to know the premises that led you to this opinion. Otherwise, to be honest, one gets the impression of a common profanation. By the way, between us, 17-35 is also a 'D' line, then what if 20-35 and 17-35 are d-shki :)?
Arkady, all the same, everyone will remain with their own, won't they? I don't see the task of persuading someone who has eyes and see ... I have nothing against 17-35, a good lens, but according to the criterion of price and quality, in my opinion, 20-35 loses ... Nothing personal, just my opinion ...
Thank you for giving at least some answer.
https://kevwilfoto.wordpress.com/2010/03/16/final-review-of-nikon-16-35mm-f4-vr/
here by the way 16-35 vs 14-24
Now think where 14-24 and 20-35 2,8
you wrote there above “Have you seen 20-35? Here, as indeed everywhere else, theorists gather ... This is the best option ... ”when the person mentioned 16-35.
I have been shooting since 1993, over the years I have crossed paths with various photographers on the set, Nikkor 17-35 have never met ... They probably use it very rarely. Although this lens is very interesting to me ... This review was useful to me. Arkady thank you very much !!!
Back in the day, when I was still shooting weddings, I also had a choice in front of a wide one for D3s. Sloped between 20-35 and Nikkor 20mm f2.8D. As a result, I took a small, compact, lightweight 20mm fix. The picture quality is one-on-one like that of the 20-35, and maybe even better ... But the price and size differ greatly. In addition, 20ka is a prime lens, and a prime lens makes you think, not mindlessly clicking. What to hide, because 20-35 people, in principle, take not for the notorious focal 35, but for a wide angle, so why not just take 20mm. And if you take 20k in addition to 85k, then, in principle, with these two glasses you can shoot the whole wedding, and you don't even need to take a backpack, put the lens case on the belt and went to work. I know one photographer, he was the best in our city, and he shot about the last 3 years with just such a set, 2 D700 carcasses on a double shoulder strap, and 2 fixes 20mm f2.8D and 85mm f1.4D and he had pictures wow.
Dear users of "Alexey DV" and "fotika", the discussion has slipped into a flame. Or on business, or in a ban. The offending comments have been wiped out. You can measure the length of your lenses elsewhere :)
I am not at that age, Arkady, to measure myself with something ... Khamovyonku simply answered ...
Last warning.
Arkady, please answer, why are you deleting my completely correct comments? It gives the impression of a biased attitude, I am quite loyal to you and your site. Do you need an alternative point of view?
Removed offensive comments.
Old Igor is flourishing with all his phobias, the Lynx troll feels like a fish in water ... It is not clear ...
User “Old Igor” did not violate rules.
Here, at least below ... My comment was deleted, old Igor was left ... Disorder ...
You will continue to discuss the work of moderator, earn another plus.
How can I tell you, so as not to offend ... You are the first constantly rude visitor on this site and age is not an excuse here, but rather a diagnosis (with which you are used to reward everyone). IMHO. True, I have been here recently, about a year, maybe I am mistaken, maybe not the first.
Igor Tolkachev, 47 years old.
eh gum-rubber bands. for that kind of money ... I wonder if the replacement of rubber bands is a warranty case, provided that the equipment is under warranty?
Among my friends-photographers who shoot a lot (much more than me), and I (4 years - 100 thousand frames) in two or three years the rubber bands swell a little (which does not interfere with the work), but do not come off. They are peeled off for 4-5 years, and there you can already change the carcass :)
I'm interested in something else: for example, we buy an amateur camera (d7x00, d6x0, d750) with a guaranteed resource of 150k, and use it professionally - we shoot a lot, and, say, in a year and a half we snap 200 thousand frames, and the shutter breaks. Photo under warranty. Will the repair be guaranteed (free of charge), or, taking into account the overrun for the “guaranteed” resource, will the repair of the nc be considered a warranty?
THERE IS NO GUARANTEED RESOURCE OF THE GATEWAY at NIKON !!!
Do not confuse marketing and hanging noodles on neophyte ears with a guarantee! :)
open your guarantee and find there that Nikon guarantees 150K shutter clicks.
not found?
the guarantee is the financial commitment of the company. Nikon's guarantee indicates only the time - who has a year, who has 2 years. EVERYTHING.
here is a car - there OR 100K km OR 3 (5) years warranty. which comes first.
the idea is clear? :)))))))))
But who reads it (guarantee) until it breaks (pah-pah)? :)
I'm not yet an official, but from the store ...
In general - yes, I re-read all those characteristics in the instructions, the shutter resource is not mentioned anywhere.
Thanks for the info. :)
The resource of the shutter is the same advertising noodles ... if it is included in the guarantee - consider yourself lucky ...
[+] Alexey DV
Thank you, Ray ... Still, I'm not alone ... Most are silent ...
Alexei, honestly, what difference does it make to anyone?
People want new cool lenses for themselves, good health, wanting is not harmful.
Let's not forget that the main thing in photography is the result. And how to achieve it, everyone decides for himself, right?
It is clear that all such disputes rest on one thing - a high-quality lens costs crazy money.
It is understandable, these are not smartphones for you, everything is very delicate and costly here. Optics is an extremely capricious science (section).
Let's better discuss an extremely important issue - how to correctly shoot wide, so that later it would not be ashamed.
I personally think that it’s extremely difficult to shoot broadly if you are not a reporter.
Yes, I agree, while I was shooting on crop, 20-35 I was constantly involved ... On FF he has very little space ...
correction - no matter how carefully you treat, there is always dust and it always gets on the lens and in the lens.
no matter how neatly you use the lens, the unreliable AF motor alas whistles and breaks.
repair - in nikone service - not cheap. often the entire block needs to be changed. repair does not completely solve the problem, after a while, welcome to the service again.
on modern cameras with a high density of pixels on the FF at the edges on the open solid soap. to close the hole - the meaning in the hole is lost 2.8.
problems with the AF motor, insufficient resolution in the field of the frame, cosmic price - put an end to the popularity of this lens.
“For many photographers, there is often a difficult choice between two lenses: Nikon 17-35 / 2.8G”
Probably, 17-35 / 2.8D was meant?
fixed.
Alternatively - tamron 17-35 / f2.8-4 Lighter and cheaper :)
Arkady, I am pleased to read your images and notes on photo lenses, for which many thanks to you. I myself am now confronted with the choice of the width on the FF 16-35 f / 4 and 17-35 f / 2.8 in favor of the latter and your article is right on time.
Regarding the remark about “A little bit of rumors and problems.”: The problem with the whistling of the focusing motor for glasses 17-35 / 28-70 concerns lenses produced in the period from 1999 to 2005. And since 2006, lenses without a jamb began to come out, they cannot it's so difficult according to serials, they start with “4”.
Serial Link http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html
This one in the review also has a '4' and whistles. 28-70 / 2,8 and was produced at all until 2007, as a result, the gap between 2006 and 2007 is not so great. And 80-200 MK4 and even before 2003.
Just when switching from crop to FF, I select the width information very carefully.
As for the whistle: this is one of the first ultrasonic motor lenses, the first lots have such a defect, then the motor model was changed and it seems that they solved the problem. I learned this from correspondence with the service center, they even have two prices for replacing the motor: the old one is cheaper (about 250ue) and the new one is more expensive (about 350ue).
then I got info about how to distinguish old from new (actually by serial numbers).
According to personal observations, it’s the lens that has been negative since 2006.
PS: There are a lot of 80-200 of them there, but judging by the serials, there is an idea that the model was simply changed to 70-200 / 2.8 G IF-ED VR, but this question did not raise because I now have a “focus” for architecture / landscapes ... Regarding 28-70, it was later updated to 24-70, with the discontinuation of the first, in principle it is logical.
Welcome all. Arkady, thank you very much for the review. I am the owner of the Nikon 17-35mm f / 2.8D, which is discussed in the review. Recently, I thought about changing it to a Nikon 24-70mm f / 2.8. I am an amateur and mostly shoot for myself. I began to notice that I was missing the middle range. I still have a Nikon 70-200mm f / 2.8 II TV. It turns out that with such a gear, the average range falls out for me. Last year, I photographed a friend’s daughter’s baptism, I had to crawl along the walls with a telephoto to take at least a half-length portrait, and with a shirk it was necessary to approach almost point blank. I think 24-70 would help me out here. After reading the article, thoughts crept in, but is it worth changing 17-35 to 24-70? Unfortunately, I have no way to compare pictures from one and the other. I would like to hear reasoned arguments in the direction of one and the other lens from those who dealt with both of them. Thank you in advance. PS I have a Nikon D800 camera.
24-70 is a classic station wagon, of course it is more convenient for them to shoot everything in a row than 17-35 + 70-200. The same baptism is not a problem at all for 17-35. I would not change 17-35, but still added 24-70 or 28-70 to it.
Thanks for the answer. I'll think.
In accordance with the latest law of August 1, Roskomnadzor included our public in the list of media sources. This means that from now on we have no right to publish false or unverified information. The same goes for the comments of subscribers.
Therefore, if you do not want our public to be blacklisted, do not write in the comments to entries and discussions that Canon is a good camera. This information is too dubious and hardly plausible. Thank you for understanding.
Best regards, Administration.
Public Nikon?
what did my eyes read? Resource physically Ukr. where are “your” supervisors getting on?
This is just a copy-paste from the public Nikon in VK.
Question fotik-If the resource Ukr. What is “our” language here?
Omg. show the document that it is yours? out of courtesy to the people who live here, I write in the language that is mainly used here. I can specifically answer YOU in Ukr or English, I can still a little more in Polish and even in Spanish ... only I think it won't help you. as they say, this is a completely different story. by the way, learn history)) you will learn a lot about YOUR country
Well, why so?