Nikon 17-35 mm AF-S Review for Documentary Photography -

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Introduction

When I was shooting film the 17-35 mm AF-S Nikkor was my "desert Island" lens - take away everything else and I'd be quite happy to use this lens for all my work - on a visit to New Zealand in 2006 this was just the case - one lens, one body and a big bag of film - perfect !

This lens is getting rather long in the tooth having been in production since 1999 but continues to interest many people and is capable of producing excellent results with film and digital bodies alike. Having now transitioned to a D200 and received a 1.5x crop factor with all my focal lengths as a consequence this lens is no longer as wide as it was on 35 mm.

But with a host of competition offered by Nikon and third party manufacturers for the wide angle zoom position in my camera bag I'm not ready to part company just yet !

Here's why this lens remains a top performer for me and why it still continues to fulfill my wide angle zoom needs.

Throughout this review I'll be looking at the particular attributes of the 17-35 mm AF-S for documentary photography and considering its advantages and disadvantages on a digital body.

Background

For three years I used the 17-35 on an F100 and have continued to do so on a D200 since March 2006. With the DX sensor the focal length equates to 25.5-52.5 mm (on 35 mm) and therefore functions more like a mid-range zoom. With Nikon's introduction of the 12-24mm and 17-55 DX zooms to cover a comparable focal length range to the 17-35 and 28-70 on a DX sensor I (like many people) am suffering a lens system inertia - when I originally bought the 17-35 my plan was to get a lens system that included the 17-35 mm, 28-70 mm and 70-200 mm - sufficient range to cover every situation I thought I'd need. Using a digital body has put a different perspective on this lens combination; while the extension on the long end of the range is useful I'm now compromised at the wide end.

Though I envy the wide angle range of the 12-24 DX tremendously I personally won't be trading my 17-35 AF-S any time soon, here's why:

◆ Build quality - the 17-35 is rock solid and has taken many knocks and many hours of use in difficult conditions, by comparison I'd have less confidence in the durability of the 12-24 given its lower grade construction.

◆ Speed - When compared to the 12-24 DX I'd miss the f/2.8 maximum aperture of the 17-35. While I mostly use it at f/5.6 to maximize image quality it's good to have the option to go to f/2.8 and counteract the inevitable softness and chromatic aberration in post production.

◆ Overlap - if I did get the 12-24 mm there would be such a huge overlap with the 17-35 (given that I also have the 28-70) that I couldn't justify keeping the 17-35 and I'd miss it too much if I traded it in.

◆ System flexibility - I can use the 17-35 on both DX and 35 mm bodies through the full zoom range. While I've effectively retired my F100 now I still have an F3 that I enjoy using on occasion.

◆ Handling advantages - I currently prefer to be able to control the lens aperture with the aperture ring around the lens collar and do not enjoy the command dial control required with 'G' type lenses.

◆ Zoom and focus consistency - I've gotten used to the front ring controlling focus and the rear ring controlling zoom - it makes sense to me to keep this basic design principle constant. With Nikon's 12-24 mm DX this design has been reversed, presumably because Nikon wanted the zoom ring to fall more easily to hand considering manual focus less important with the wide depth of field offered by the 12-24. From my point of view this design inconsistency is just the sort of thing that's likely to result in me missing a fleeting opportunity during use.

◆ Cost - I saved up for a long time to afford the 17-35 and even then could only afford the second-hand price. Given the limited trade in value and the cost of a new 12-24 lens I couldn't justify the expense in such a short turnover time-scale from purchasing the 17-35. While I begrudgingly accept that I may have to upgrade bodies approximately ever three years there's no way I can afford to update my lenses on this short a time-scale as well.

If I was selecting a suite of lenses from scratch with no 35 mm legacy affecting my choice (i.e. starting out with a DX body) I may have opted for the 12-24 DX, 17-55 DX and 70-200 AFS and I reckon this combination would meet virtually all my needs for documentary photography, with the obvious exception of a fast wide angle. If this had been the case I'd never have used the 17-35 AF-S and would likely not have appreciated the huge amount that it has to offer. Because I'm already committed to my existing three lens zoom combination I'll concentrate on making the best images I can with what I've got. After all when I'm out shooting with a 35 mm rangefinder body I've only ever had a single 35 mm lens and I've never let this hold me back.

Throughout the rest of this review I'll cover the attributes of this lens (good and bad) to give detailed picture of how this lens suits documentary subjects, what it has to offer over the competition and why it continues to be the lens I use to make most of my best images with.

This review of the 17-35 AFS Nikkor is based on my late production version, model number 271xxx. According to the model numbers available to me this number indicates my sample was produced approximately fourth fifths along the production cycle as of the date of writing (2007).