 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / February 2007Old 17-35mm f/2.8 Test Failed
This is a test of an old beat up 17-35mm f/2.8 against a 28mm f/2 AI-S and a 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 and I would say it failed. I'm sending it back. <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/2007-02-16-test-17-35> The first shot is the center, the rest are the 4 corners. You can see in the file name [17_2.8_17-35] is the 17-35 lens at 17mm and f/2.8, [28_2.8_28] is the 28mm prime, [28_5.6_28-200] is the 28-200mm zoom at 28mm and f/5.6. This sample was 'bargain grade' used for $819, it is really beat up & scratched which doesn't bother me, the glass is flawless but the focus ring makes scraping sounds and has an uneven feel. It looked to my eyes like it was not autofocusing correctly some of the time and the tests show it consistently looking awful wide open at f/2.8. I'm not really sure I want this lens, it is as big and heavy as my D200 body and it costs $1460 new at B&H, $1300 import & close to that used on ebay. Because there is some sample variation especially in older samples, it would be risky buying even a perfect looking sample used. I thought this thing was supposed to be sharp wide open, I can't imagine what's making it look so bad wide open, can that be caused by banging around and misaligning the elements? Am I expecting too much? cross-posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm & rec.photo.digital.slr-systems > This is a test of an old beat up 17-35mm f/2.8 against a 28mm f/2 AI-S > and a 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 and I would say it failed. I'm sending it back. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > cross-posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm & rec.photo.digital.slr-systems People think that if you get a lens that is soft wide open, all you have to do is stop it down and the problems are fixed. This is not always the case. I had a 50mm f1.4 that didn't match a 50mm f1.8 at ANY setting. >>This is a test of an old beat up 17-35mm f/2.8 against a 28mm f/2 AI-S >>and a 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 and I would say it failed. I'm sending it back. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > always the case. I had a 50mm f1.4 that didn't match a 50mm f1.8 at > ANY setting. Nobody would pay that kind of money to use it stopped down. Other tests show that this lens should match almost every prime in it's range but this old beater has problems. It must be whoever used it to death eventually banged it hard enough to knock something out of alignment, I can't imagine they used it so hard with it's flaws. > >>This is a test of an old beat up 17-35mm f/2.8 against a 28mm f/2 AI-S > >>and a 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 and I would say it failed. I'm sending it back. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > eventually banged it hard enough to knock something out of alignment, I > can't imagine they used it so hard with it's flaws. You might be able to prove that if you image a very bright point source (in the centre of the field) and see if the image is skewed at all. If it deviates from perfectly round, displays CA on one side, it could indicate an alignment problem. > Nobody would pay that kind of money to use it stopped down. Other > tests show that this lens should match almost every prime in it's > range but this old beater has problems. It must be whoever used it to > death eventually banged it hard enough to knock something out of > alignment, I can't imagine they used it so hard with it's flaws. You got it. That lens outperforms most primes of the same range. Rita >Am I expecting too much? >From a Nikon lens? Probably. It looks like the lens does have some focusing problems. In that first pic, for example, it looks like it was trying to focus past the target (blinds?). Perhaps a more solid target might yield different results. > This is a test of an old beat up 17-35mm f/2.8 against a 28mm f/2 AI-S and a 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 and I would say it failed. I'm > sending it back. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > cross-posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm & rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Hi-- (I'm guessing on your email address.) I know where there is a Nikkor 17-35mm locally that is possibly still available for $1000 (it may be possible to talk the seller down a bit - and it is likely returnable if not satisfied). It will not be mint, but likely nice enough though it was used professionally. Holler if interested and I will email you the contact information (it is not the one I checked out...). -- David Ruether d_ruether@hotmail.com www.donferrario.com/ruether >>This is a test of an old beat up 17-35mm f/2.8 against a 28mm f/2 AI-S and a 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 and I would say it failed. I'm >>sending it back. <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/2007-02-16-test-17-35> >>I'm not really sure I want this lens, it is as big and heavy as my D200 body and it costs $1460 new at B&H, $1300 import & close >>to that used on ebay. Because there is some sample variation especially in older samples, it would be risky buying even a perfect [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Holler if interested and I will email you the contact information (it is not > the one I checked out...). Thanks but I think I've decided I really don't want this lens. I would mostly use a 'normal' zoom for street shooting where I want to be inconspicuous and lightweight or landscapes where I have the time to change lenses. It will be more fun to collect some smaller prime lenses for this range and I can afford a few nice old AI lenses for that budget. >> I know where there is a Nikkor 17-35mm locally that is possibly still available for $1000 (it may be possible >> to talk the seller down a bit - and it is likely returnable if not satisfied). >> It will not be mint, but likely nice enough though it was used professionally. >> Holler if interested and I will email you the contact information (it is not >> the one I checked out...). > Thanks but I think I've decided I really don't want this lens. I would mostly use a 'normal' zoom for street shooting where I want > to be inconspicuous and lightweight or landscapes where I have the time to change lenses. It will be more fun to collect some > smaller prime lenses for this range and I can afford a few nice old AI lenses for that budget. Wise decision...;-) Don't overlook the surprisingly good 28-70mm f3.5-4.5 or 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 (I have a new, checked-out one of these FS...) for compact "walk-around" zooms - but non-zooms like the 20mm f2.8, 24mm f2.8, 28mm f2.8, 35mm f2, 50mm f1.8 and 1.4, 85mm f2, 100mm f2.8 E, 105mm f2.5, and 135mm f2.8 are all compact and sharp. The 75-150mm f3.5 would also be interesting... -- David Ruether d_ruether@hotmail.com www.donferrario.com/ruether > This is a test of an old beat up 17-35mm f/2.8 against a 28mm f/2 AI-S and > a 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 and I would say it failed. I'm sending it back. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > cross-posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm & rec.photo.digital.slr-systems What was the "target" for the tests? How was focus achieved? Camera setup (support, distance, etc.)? The lighting seems to have changed drastically during the test as well. I'm most surprised at the results of the 28-200. They actually look quite good!! I have & use the 17-35 extensively & have never had occasion to question its results wide open or not, with film or digital and, believe me when first released, in Canada, it cost a hell of a lot more than the $1460US B&H are now asking!! I think I'd be sending it back & I can only assume it certainly has had a few "battles" which it obviously has lost. Bob >>This is a test of an old beat up 17-35mm f/2.8 against a 28mm f/2 AI-S and >>a 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 and I would say it failed. I'm sending it back. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > What was the "target" for the tests? How was focus achieved? Camera setup > (support, distance, etc.)? Quick test. Hand held AF (re-tried a few times when it didn't look right by focusing on something closer then back). The target was metal blinds and the building across the street beyond, shot in portrait & not rotated. Perhaps that 17/2.8 shot (upper left in all images) was not in focus but some of the corners look OK. > The lighting seems to have changed drastically during the test as well. Yeah, that was aperture priority mode matrix metering. Too much hassle for manual with 3 lenses & 3 apertures. I was surprised how different the exposures came out with no change in conditions. > I'm most surprised at the results of the 28-200. > They actually look quite good!! I knew there was a reason I got that dumb thing <grin>. > I have & use the 17-35 extensively & have never had occasion to question its > results wide open or not, with film or digital and, believe me when first > released, in Canada, it cost a hell of a lot more than the $1460US B&H are > now asking!! > I think I'd be sending it back & I can only assume it certainly has had a > few "battles" which it obviously has lost. It is sent back. $13 shipping, argh. It shared shipping with a 10.5mm fisheye & a remote release on the way to me. > This is a test of an old beat up 17-35mm f/2.8 against a 28mm f/2 AI-S and > a 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 and I would say it failed. I'm sending it back. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > cross-posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm & rec.photo.digital.slr-systems I absolutely love mine with film, but wish it had a wider zoom range on my digi. -- www.mattclara.com > The first shot is the center, the rest are the 4 corners. You can see in > the file name [17_2.8_17-35] is the 17-35 lens at 17mm and f/2.8, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of the time and the tests show it consistently looking awful wide open > at f/2.8. I think the sample you got is so bad that whomever sold that to you should be ashamed of themselves. And a "bargain grade" lens should at least work per factory specifications. If you don't mind saying, whom did you buy this from? > I'm not really sure I want this lens, it is as big and heavy as my > D200 body and it costs $1460 new at B&H, $1300 import & close to that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > caused by banging around and misaligning the elements? Am I expecting > too much? You got a beat up old dud that should have been thrown in the dumpster. Send it back and get your money back. As for big and heavy, this lens is a lightweight compared to my 28-70/2.8. My 17-35/2.8 is razor sharp and clean. I wouldn't expect anything less than perfect images from this lens. Rita |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.