Wide Angle Zoom for F3. Nikon 17-35mm or 17-55mm DX?

powervideo

powervideo

Well-known member
Just looking at getting a 2.8 wide zoom for my F3. I'm torn between the older 17-35mm or the DX 17-55mm. I have the ProLock adaptor so no probs with the aperture. I'm interested in any F3 users who have either of these lenses. The 17-35mm is seen as one of the great legend lenses, but I'm wondering if the 17-55mm is a better choice. Sharpness, contrast, bokeh and flare response are priorities.
 
The nikon 17-35mm sucks. Maybe it was good back on those days, but it is terrible compared to any modern zoom. I had two for a few years and the corners were just too soft. I sold it and bought a 14-24 there is no comparison. The 17-55 will be much more interesting for the F3 since it´s sharper and it has a longer zoom range.
 
macgregor said:
The nikon 17-35mm sucks. Maybe it was good back on those days, but it is terrible compared to any modern zoom. I had two for a few years and the corners were just too soft. I sold it and bought a 14-24 there is no comparison. The 17-55 will be much more interesting for the F3 since it´s sharper and it has a longer zoom range.
Click to expand...
I use the lens regularly. Very happy with this as my wide. Tend to use it too much. Very handy lens, and no compaints on sharpness. Exellent flares as well.
 
I have the 17-55 also in combination with the prolock. It is an excellent lens, love the zoom range. Can shoot almost the whole day with it. Only downside is that is extends a little bit when zooming. Not much, less than a centimeter or so.
optically its very very good.I also have a set of Zeiss ZF's but I tend to use only the 1.4 lenses because the 17-55 handles everything so well.
 
macgregor said:
The nikon 17-35mm sucks. Maybe it was good back on those days, but it is terrible compared to any modern zoom. I had two for a few years and the corners were just too soft. I sold it and bought a 14-24 there is no comparison. The 17-55 will be much more interesting for the F3 since it´s sharper and it has a longer zoom range.
Click to expand...

I have a 17-35 mm Nikor lens I use mainly during hand held shooting, I've never noticed soft corners. I bought it from Doclos lenses with the Doclos conversions. I know Michael checks his lenses out when they come into his facility so maybe I got a good one. I've enclosed some still shots using the 17-35 mm, the wide shot I digitally zoomed out to better see the corners.
17-35 mm tight.jpg17-35 mm wide.jpg
 
My "evolution" with this zoom range:

Started with Tokina ATX 20-35/2.8- great lens for a cheap price (same build as famous 28-70/2.8), internal focus (keeps focus when zoomed) a little low on flare... Second was
Nikon 17-35/2.8- great lens but couple of samples I tried/owned since spring were terrible for not keeping focus when zoomed. For such a short focal length, that really annoyed me. Than, I got
Nikon 17-55/2.8 - perfect zoom range for "all around" lens. It stays on F3 for pretty much most of the time. I used it with success with mtf adapter. Since getting ProLock, it's a winnig combination. Sharpness is great, no vignetting, very good control of flare. Yes, it extends when zoomed but in my set up (Genus matte box, nuns nickers flexible adapter, all sitting on Zacuto rails and plate) that does not matter. I was tempted a few times looking and drooling over Red 17-50/2.8 or even older 18-50/2.8 but the size of those lenses and the size (price) of all necessary add ons (matte box, filters,...) kept me with Nikon. I don't care about short focus trow of Nikon, as i don't find it an issue in type of work I do. Since the size and portability were among the main requirements (along the good optical performance), I found Nikon 17-55/2.8 perfect for F3.


p304410319-4.jpg


p416490160-4.jpg

At the end, just to add that a few more lenses that I added to the mix: extra wide- Tokina 11-16/2.8, long end- Tokina 50-135/2.8 , very long end- nikkor 50-300/4.5 ED and "talking head" set up "master"- Tokina 28-70/2.6-2.8... All excellent performers in their respected focal lengths...
 
Last edited:
Does the Nikon 17-55/2.8 lens have a manual aperature ring on the body? I can only see th focus ring on the pictures. I'd need it to have one as I wouldn't want to use the aperature ring on the MTF adaptor. Thanks.
 
If you are looking for a real wide lens you might investigate the Tokina 11-16mm. I have used the Duclos version on the F3 and it is substantially wider than the wide end of a 17-50mm.
 
Sparky874 said:
Does the Nikon 17-55/2.8 lens have a manual aperature ring on the body? I can only see th focus ring on the pictures. I'd need it to have one as I wouldn't want to use the aperature ring on the MTF adaptor. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Hi Sparky, no it's a G-series lens; no manual aperture.
 
Yes I have the Tokina which is a great ultra-wide for the F3. I wil have a good look at the 17-55mm. I use mostly Nikons with a reverse-action Chrosziel FF in case I ever switch to PL's, but I'm wondering if this will ever happen. The Nikons are very lightweight and cheap compared to PL's. Once you get used to the focus throw, they are pretty easy to operate by yourself.


David W. Jones said:
If you are looking for a real wide lens you might investigate the Tokina 11-16mm. I have used the Duclos version on the F3 and it is substantially wider than the wide end of a 17-50mm.
Click to expand...
 
I am surprised that "Duke" has not chimed in on this one yet. I purchased a 17-35 Nikon for my F3 based on his recommendation and could not be happier. I do use a matte box and the front of the lens not changing is very helpful. It also does have external f/ control. The lens of the FX series is much larger than the DX and thus you are only using the center of it with the F3. I have tried this lens on my Nikon D3s and it is sharp as can be all the way to the edge, so I am sure that the limitations of it on a cropped sensor are insignificant. It does not maintain focus as zoomed which is a limitation. I love this lens, and have lots of Nikon glass. At 35mm it matches the kit lens perfectly.
 
Next to my Nikon primes, I'm using the Tokina 16-50 f2.8 for zoom/wide. It's serving me quite well and no complaints except I wish I could actually pull a full zoom smoothly with it by hand,. it also holds focus fine once you set it and zoom.

I shot this with it at widest setting:



Note: lens flare is fake
 
Last edited:
I have the Tokina 16-50 as well. The only possible downside would be the lens extends when zooming, and the very short focus throw.
 
lasikdenver said:
I am surprised that "Duke" has not chimed in on this one yet. I purchased a 17-35 Nikon for my F3 based on his recommendation and could not be happier. I do use a matte box and the front of the lens not changing is very helpful. It also does have external f/ control. The lens of the FX series is much larger than the DX and thus you are only using the center of it with the F3. I have tried this lens on my Nikon D3s and it is sharp as can be all the way to the edge, so I am sure that the limitations of it on a cropped sensor are insignificant. It does not maintain focus as zoomed which is a limitation. I love this lens, and have lots of Nikon glass. At 35mm it matches the kit lens perfectly.
Click to expand...

Ahh, that four letter word called work intervened. LOL

I have the 17-35mm and have no issues with it at all.
  1. Mattebox friendly as it doesn't extend at all. Ever scratch a $250 filter because a lens is rubbing?
  2. Its version of 17mm doesn't distort noticeably. (Can't say the same of the Tokina 17mm I had.)
  3. No softness issues in the corners. It's full frame, but the F3 is DX sized. You aren't using the corners so you shouldn't have corner softness, unless something is drastically wrong.
  4. They are mostly metal. There's a fair amount of plastic on G lenses.
I do love this 17-35mm lens.

My biggest objections with the 17-55mm is the lack of manual aperture control, lens extension, and the inability to use it on a full frame sensor (still or video) in the future. If you have a Prolock the aperture ring becomes less of an issue. Still I think the 17-35 has some advantages over the 17-55, with the exception that the 17-55 is a longer range.

I note that I seem to use the 17-35 the most of all my lenses even though the 28-70 overlaps a fair amount. (Why they didn't make the 28-70 focus internally instead of extend I'll never know. To keep it 3/4" shorter over all? Argh!)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top