Question for DP's & Photographers

armisiano

armisiano

Veteran
I'm just looking for personal opinions here. Feel free to rant. (Dangerous, I know)

It's nothing I could do in the immediate future, but maybe in a few months or so, what do you think of the following idea:
Sell my 20mm, 28mm, & 35mm lenses, and use that money combined with additional funds to purchase the Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8 zoom.

It would be used with both my Nikon D80 DSLR and Letus Extreme/DVX-100B.
 
How fast and how sharp are your primes?

I think a lot of it is going to come down to your personal preference for shooting whether you like primes or zooms better.
 
Right. It really comes down to personal preference, as shooting on a zoom will speed up your workflow, however throughout the range will be slightly softer than a prime at each focal length. Also like Will asked, how fast are your primes? If they are comparable to the zoom in terms of f/stop, then the last choice is an aesthetic one, and really depends on what your shooting, and if you don't have the time to be switching between primes all the time.
 
I think I'm thinking mostly about convenience. My 20 is a 1.8, 28's a 2.8, and 35's a 2, but I rarely would ever use the 20 or 35 COMPLETELY open. And for my still photography purposes the zoom would be a LOT more convenient, whereas with shooting video it probably wouldn't save THAT much time.

Anyone out there have any personal experience with the 17-35? Do the images look great? I know with wides there's very deep DOF as is, but do you think you loose a little too much shallow DOF aesthetics (what little there is) using the wide zoom lens? (sorry for the odd phrasing)
 
17-35mm is a lovely lens, I got the 17-55mm for myself because on a DX camera the range is much better, but optically I found them very similar (i.e. excelllent). In my experience the 17-35mm is a notably better performer than the (I'm assuming Sigma?) 20mm f/1.8 when you compare the two, I found the Sigma very ordinary until at least f/4; I haven't used the 28mm f/2.8 so I can't speak for that; 35mm f/2 is my favourite Nikon lens and sharper than the 17-35mm.

I'd suggest you switch to the zoom, it's an excellent lens - and in my experience the less you have to fiddle around with your 35mm adapter on set, the better.
 
I've read that the 17-35 doesn't have hard stops on the focus barrel, so the barrel will continue to move for a bit after you hit infinity focus. This could make using a followfocus with it hard.
 
Well, in case anyone's curious of my decision, and why, I'll quickly share.

I have decided to, at least for now, NOT get the zoom. Why? Simply because I realized I like the ability to stop down my lens freely for my still photography, so as convenient as it would be for my 35mm adapter, it wouldn't be financially smart since I wouldn't want to sell off my primes. Maybe when my finances are a bit more sound and I can afford to have BOTH, I will, but for now I'll just keep changing lenses during shoots.

Thanks to everyone for their feedback and thoughts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top