Super sharp. an almost perfect lens

never drop an AF-S lens! even if the lens barrel is metal and very tough, the inside motor will be damaged

the lens served me well for almost 9 years. I've sold it already after a made a lot of money using this lens. everything was perfect, the AF, sharpness, and ergonomic. the sad thing is i dropped it. for years it worked fine, until the AF-S motor start causing the focusing ring stuck a little bit.

Customer Service

quite expensive

Similar Products Used:

Nikon 16-35mm VR

So fast and open, great clarity, razor sharp right to the edge, colour is spot on (the Tamron always had a yellowish tinge by comparison?), focus is perfect, no fringes on the outside, even in low light.

Cost, but a FX format lens is an investment for life (which is why I did the body at the same time!). It also shows up flaws in my ability!

Brilliant lens! I'm doing a lot more architectural photos, and moved from a D70s & 18-200 Tamron to this lens & a D700 and the results are spectacular!

Similar Products Used:

Nothing that comes close!

Produces good image quality.
Contrary to what other people believe, I think the weight is really nice. Gives my camera a center of mass and balance.

Terrible auto focus. I don't know what 17-35 you're using because this one's auto focus is horrendous.

Okay so I've never had the real money to actually buy it so each time I've rented the lens. Perhaps the fact that it was a rental could have effected the outcome of my images, but at this point, lets assume that I had actually bought it.

Alot of talk has this lens at legendary status and I wouldn't doubt that given its history of usage as a preferred photojournalist's/wedding photographer's go to lens. There's alot going on about fast and accurate focus and that is probably where my main complaint lies.

It does not have fast and accurate focus...often times it has a problem even locating the subject even at center weight! I highly doubt its my camera's own fault so I'd have to put the blame on the lens itself.

In terms of quality...yea you could say its sharp and clear on all fronts, but by all practicality's sake, its not worth forking over a grand and some for it. I could get the same quality on a sigma or tamron.

I'm hoping the 17-55's autofocus is far better than this one's because, at this point, I'd have to say that the 17-35 is mediocre on that front.

the way it is built

heavy, soft at 2.8

i read a lot of this lens before i got one , its said to be a legendary lens , well , it is sure well built, very good looking , smaller than the 14-24mm , but ...nothing speacial about it , my 18-55 kit lense is equal or better sharp in day light than this , may be it is excellent on film camera ,but not omy d300 , plus its big and heavy , and i saw no legendary elements about it like the 85mm nikkor 1.4 which is really legendary by all means

Everything and I mean everything! It's 5 wide angle lenses wrapped in neat package. With excellent glass and if you have a love for shooting wide angle, this is the one. I will carry this lens and the 50MM F1.8 AIS and the 70-300MM F4-5.6 ED. That would be an 12 lens kit using 3 lenses. That should take care of just about everything for the landscape.

None that I can see so far. I do wish it had a depth of field scale like the primes. One thing that I was for sure not used to was that when you turn the focusing ring past the indicators in the depth window, the ring continues to keep turning. That was too weird. For a split moment I thought I turned it too far and broke it. I understand that it's natural for that lens to continue to turn.. However, my stomach was in my throat.

Well, after debating for a couple of years on this lens I bit the bullet and finally did it. I've been a big prime fan since the 70's. I can't count the amount of time I've spent looking at reviews and doing the reserach on this lens. A couple of times I got close to ordering it and said to myself, let's hold on. Recently when I got close to doing it again, the thought of holding on never came into my mind. Guess it was time! When I took the first shots I automatically went to the 17MM setting. The thought I had was "Holy Crap this thing is wide". I also thought, "so this is what everybody's been talking about". It is magnificent at 17MM!! It's also great at the 20, 24, and 28 settings also. Didn't shhot at 35MM. I shot the whole roll at F8 with an F3. I got the color saturation & contrast that I've had with the primes in a one lens package. Should've bought this sooner I thought. I'll keep my primes in this range however but this is an awfully convenient one lens package. If you've been thinking about buying this lens, DON'T do what I did and wait. GET IT!!!!!!

Customer Service

Haven't needed Nikon since the 70's. Hopefully not on this one either.

Similar Products Used:

Many countless Nikkors since the 70's.

-no light falloff in corners even wide open on D70 (crop factor), a bit more using F90 but still excellent
-very light & simple distortion between 19-35 mm
-Very sharp from center to border even wide open
-compliant with film cameras
-build quality
-well balanced with both D70 and F90 despite the weight
-has an aperture ring
-weight less than the set of primes it replaces

-weight a ton for a single lens
-tricky zoom range

I got this lens at a bargain price on ebay.
I got it from a newspaper liquidation, it shows marks of use but is optically and mechanicaly perfect.

It is my standard lens on my D70.
I already have made great pictures using this lens.
Its picture quality is stellar in comparison with the 18-70 DX I formerly own.

I have the occasion to borrow the 17-55 1/2.8 DX. It shows more distortion & fall off than the 17-35... and is not compliant with film cameras...

I was formerly addicted to canon stuffs before going digital... I owned EF 24mm & 35mm prime lenses... None of them provide results like this zoom on films.

I've read somewhere that this lens provide about the same picture quality as the primes it replaces... In this case, this zoom is a bargain even at full price.

Similar Products Used:

Canon EF 24 1/2.8
Canon EF 35 1/2

Sharp even at 2.8. But require good handheld skill because of narrow DOF
Color constrast is great
Focus fast, quiet and smooth.

Watch out if you use UV filter - if you shoot at strong light souce, the len may focus on the flare on the UV filter itself. Sometimes I have to take the UV filter out to prevent this from happening.
Quite Heavy.

Sharp and fast. Constant f2.8 is very useful for low light shooting. Eventhough on DSLR it becomes a mind wild angle zoom (25.5 to 52.5) It is still a great lens to use.

Similar Products Used:

Sigma 10-20mm HSM EX DC
Nikon 18-70mm AFS DX

Superb optics, Very good handling, built to last and last.

Big and heavy and therefore easier to bang around it you're not careful. Price is high but you definately get a great lens for the money.

Well, I too broke down and paid the big bucks for this Flagship DX lens. I have purchased the 12-24 DX 4.0 and was not all that impressed so I didn't expect that much from the 17-25. Was I wrong. This is now my favorite lens, period. It is super sharp from edge to edge even wide open. The color saturation is awesome and the pictures are nice and contrasty . . I mean I was really blown away at how this lens performs. I own several fixed lenses (24mm F2.8, 50mm F1.4, 85mm F1.4, 105mm F2.8) and this lens keeps up with and even surpases these fixed lenses. I highly recommend this lens. You wont' regret it.

Customer Service

Beach Camera's prices can't be beat and their CS is great. They ship quick and for free and no tax unless you live in NY. Give them a try.

Similar Products Used:

See my Summary.

+ Wide Angle! Range is great for me. Wide on digital, even wider on film. + Can be used on film too! + AF-S + Sharp as it gets anywhere anyhow, from f/5.6-f/16 + Close Focus is really close + Built well enough to stop most light tank rounds + Super-resistant to flare + Works with every body from the F to the D200, AI coupled metering with F2A, AS, and F3 and later. + I haven't seen any light falloff + Minimal CA + No major QC issues like the 17-55 DX has with focus misalignment

- Big and Heavy - Costly - Not as sharp at f/2.8-4.0 as it could be, but still good. - range may not be so useful for some.

I bought this lens expecting the best, coming up from an 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G AF-S DX. What I got was far beyond any of my expectations. I'd tried out a number of lenses prior to picking up this one- the 17-55 DX, 12-24 DX, 28-70 AFS, something to replace my kit lens for my D70. I just couldn't deal with it anymore, not after getting a 70-200 VR. Once you get a taste of pro glass, that's it. When I tried them out, the 17-55 immediately disappointed me with its build and layout. The 28-70 felt natural and well built, but the range wasn't what I needed most to replace the 18-70. the 12-24 was wide as can be, but the build didn't justify $900 to me when that was my whole budget, and it left a lot of ground open between it and my 70-200, and I wanted a 2.8 lens when I needed it. The 17-35 went on my camera one day and I knew it was the one. There was no question about it. The layout, the look, the feel, the build- all top notch and perfect for me. And optically I knew it was superb. Well, I bought my 17-35 for $800 used from a local photographer. It was in great condition, too. I started shooting immediately. I had high expectations coming into it with a 70-200 VR- but I simply wasn't prepared for this. It isn't bad at 2.8. It isn't at its best, true, but it still works well enough, although it isn't as good as my 24mm f/2.8D was at f/2.8. At f/4 it is visibly improving, so I try not to shoot below f/4.5. from f/5.6 to f/16 this lens is unequaled. Period. This is the 'sweet spot' of the lens, with the 'sweetest' being the range from f/8-11. It is extraordinarily sharp, edge to edge, used on the D70, D200, and F3. This lens has a remarkable resistance to flare. Filters can cause flare and ghosting to be exponentially increased, but I don't have many problems shooting with a UV filter, to give you an idea. Using it on my F3 at 17mm, I got a shot with the bright Florida Sun IN the frame, about 1/4 of the way down and 1/5 of the way from the left of the frame. No UV filter. F/8, ZERO flare. I've found only minimal Chromatic Aberration with this lens, with my D70 usually limited to 1 or 2 pixels in extreme cases. The D200 may be showing this a bit more, I'll need to do some more testing. Light falloff seems to me to be nonexistent- I have never experienced it on my D70 or D200, and on my F3 I haven't seen any, though i've got about 10 rolls waiting to be developed, and I shoot it at 5.6-11 90% of the time on the F3. Speedwise, this lens foucuses blazingly fast and quietly too. The focus ring has a nice feel to it for an AF-S lens. Speaking of focus, the close focus distance of 0.28m from the film plane is immensely helpful. After factoring in the body and the lens itself, the focus is just under 5 inches in front of the lens, and that's not counting the lens hood. The perspective induced by the ultra wide angle is really neat with close focus. The only limitation i've ever found with this lens is its range. I knew it was a relatively small range, and i've found it suits me quite well- but it may not be enough for everyone. Performance at f/2.8 could be better, but this was made for landscapes. I use it for everything from those to portraits to nature. It already outperforms the primes in its range stopped down. It is also a pretty big lens, and kind of heavy. But I live with it, and I love it. I wouldn't be completely happy without it or something about as good to shoot with.

Customer Service

not needed.

Similar Products Used:

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8D ED-IF (tested out) Nikon AF-S DX-Nikkor 12-24mm f/4.0G ED-IF (tested out) Nikon AF-S DX-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF (tested out) Nikon AF-S DX-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G ED-IF Nikon AF-S VR-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED-IF (pro glass)

Very sharp and very contrasty. Built like a tank. Fast focus.

Heavy lens. Expensive, which makes me baby it.

In my quest for a super sharp wide-angle lens for landscape shooting, all my searching eventually led me to this lens. I've used a lot of wide-angle lenses from various manufactures. This one tops them all. It is sharper than the Nikon 20mm f2.8 and the Tokina 20-35mm f2.8, both very sharp lenses. The Sigma 15-30mm might be as sharp stopped down, but there is no comparison in terms of contrast and, of course, you can't easily put a rotating polarizing or neutral grad filter on the Sigma. The Sigma is also highly prone to flare. It is much sharper and has much less distortion than the Nikon 18-35mm f3.5-4.5, although the consumer Nikon is almost equal to the 17-35mm in terms of color and contrast. To put it simply, unlike most wide-angle lenses, there really are no tradeoffs with this lens. It is heavy however, and because I spent so much for it, I really baby it and tend not to use it as much as I should. In terms of value, I rated it a little lower simply because it is so expensive.

Customer Service

Never had to have it fixed.

Similar Products Used:

Sigma 15-30mm Nikon 20mm f2.8 Nikon 18-35mm f3.5-4.5 Tokina 20-35mm f2.8