Anyone Use a Nikon 17-35mm f2.8 Lens For Landcsape

ianbarber

ianbarber

Messages
882
Name
Ian
Edit My Images
Yes
I am wanting to add a new Landscape lens to my collection, the ones I have my eye on is either the Nikon 14-24 f2.8 or the Nikon 17-35 f2.8.

The one thing which is putting me off the 14-24 is the fact that I will not be able to fit my Lee filters to it without buying the New adaptor they have made which according to Lee is is short supply.

With that in mind, I have turned towards the 17-35 f2.8 so I looking for any feedback from anyne who has or used one of these on a FF Body.
 
I've used both but sold the 17-35mm - the 14mm is just amazing.
 
the 17-35mm is also a great lens - I just couldn't justify keeping both and the wider one won! This is with the 17-35mm -

2AW_8689.jpg


and this -

AW5_9097.jpg


this one with the 14-24mm

20101130-2AW_1210.jpg


No filters used in any of them!! :)
 
Last edited:
Have to agree with above comments. Since I got 14-24, 17-35 has not been on the camera. 14-24 is a staggeringly good lens!
 
I've had the two, and both were amazing.

The 14-24 I kept for just the one day, since I couldn't fit filters on it, this was way before Lee made their special adaptors.

The 17-35 was pretty impressive all the time, though it didn't handle direct sunlight as well as the 14-24. 17-35 would flare more often.

I no longer have any of the two, personally I've found anything wider than 24 to be a bit too wide of full-frame, hence the 24-70 is ample wide for my landscapes.

If I had to choose one of the two, given the new Lee filter set-up, I'd 100% recommend the 14-24, thanks to its' nano-crystals and amazing sharpness.

Something to think about, can you find a new 17-35 cheaper than a 14-24? Grey of Westminster list the 17-35 for £1500 vs. £1200 for the 14-24 :shrug:
 
I have a 17-35 and it's fantastic, as has been said, it can flare especially if you don't use decent filters. I would have probably bought a 14-24 but I couldn't/wouldn't use it without a filter to protect that front element and there wasn't a kit available for it at the time.
 
Only used 17-35 on DX and had to say that it was utterly superb, although used it in flattish light so didn't have any major issue with flare. I did some side-by-side tests against my £300 Tamron 17-50 (at the wide end) and although the Tamron was good, the Nikon was amazing; just sharper, crisper, better resolution. Expected from a lens that's £1200 but nonetheless, a superb piece of glass to help get the most from any sensor.

It's an absolute beast, but the 14-24 ain't no shrinking violet either I've heard.

Suppose it'll be a great lens on FX but it depends on if you want wiiiiiiiiiiiide, then the 14-24 is the option.....
 
I use Lightroom - period! :) It does graduations very nicely. All three pictures have a graduation applied to the sky area in Lightroom.

I haven't used a filter on the camera in 30+ years - never felt I needed one.
 
Last edited:
I had both and while the 14-24 was good, the 17-35 was better-suited to my line of work - which unfortunately for the OP, doesn't include landscapes (but if I did, I'd use it, I guess).
I sold the 14-24 earlier this year and used some of the money to cure the squeak that the 17-35 had developed sometime during the 12 years that I've owned it (re-greased the helicoils - 40€).
 
the front element on the 14-24 is aworry. It does seem very exposed.

Not sure about the filter system which looks like it could be an issue with stray light,

14-24 does produce some superb landscape results, even wide open on FX. With CS5 correction factor, absolutely straight edges.

17-35 is also superb, wouldn't hesitate to use it in the absence of the 14-24.
 
viewfromthenorth said:
Couldn't afford either (17-35 seems overpriced second hand IMO), so I bought the 16-35 VR and I'm impressed with it so far.
Click to expand...

When you've used one you'll realise why it's so sought-after.
Brilliant lens, sharp as a very pointy-thing, tough as nails. Mine's been ruthlessly hammered for over ten years on various deployments and still going strong.
You will get an occasional 'squeaky' one - as mine later became - but it's a cheap fix.
 
Arkady2 said:
When you've used one you'll realise why it's so sought-after.
Brilliant lens, sharp as a very pointy-thing, tough as nails. Mine's been ruthlessly hammered for over ten years on various deployments and still going strong.
You will get an occasional 'squeaky' one - as mine later became - but it's a cheap fix.
Click to expand...


Mine squeaks now and then, it's done it from new but I just don't want to be without it. It tends to do it if it's not been used for a few days, it'll squeak once or twice then it's fine, though thinking about it, I don't recall it doing it recently, it's only 7 or 8 months old so maybe it's the newness wearing off :)
A newspaper staff friend of mine has one that is utterly, utterly abused and it's still perfectly functional and razor sharp.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top