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

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Close Focusing Characteristics

One of the most appealing features of the 17-35 AF-S is its close focussing ability down to around 12 cm from the front element which is very impressive for a zoom. The close focusing allows dramatic compositions to be created by placing the main subject close to the lens, occupying a large part of the frame while at the same time including the background elements of the scene. To demonstrate the benefit of this characteristic I've made some test shots comparing the close focussing distance of the 17-35 with the 28-70 AF-S on the D200.

Close focussing and lens perspective

This is the sort of test that would really be demonstrated nicely with chess pieces on a chess board; not owning such a thing I've resorted to the closest thing I could find...a square table with a jar of Marmite, a pebble and a glass bottle stopper ! The set-up for this demonstration is shown on the left, with the Marmite jar in the front of the scene and the pebble and glass stopper at the rear to provide reference points, all these test images are taken with the lenses set at f/8.

These illustrations aren't intended to be precise lens tests (they're hand-held and the best I could get in the available time), they do however demonstrate the general characteristics of changing perspective in relation to focal length and subject to lens distance.

Set-up for lens perspective demonstration

(1) 17-35 AF-S at 28 mm set to its minimum focussing distance

 

Distance from the subject to the front of the lens is around 12 cm

(2) 28-70 AF-S at 28mm set to its minimum focussing distance - the resulting image is clearly completely different
 

Distance from the subject to the front of the lens is around 32 cm

(3) 28-70 AF-S at 62 mm set to the minimum focussing distance - rendering the main subject a similar size to (1). Note the change in the background perspective and depth of field

Distance from the subject to the front of the lens is around 32 cm

The first image above (1) is made with the 17-35 AF-S at 28mm set to its minimum focussing distance, the second (2) is made at the same focal length with a 28-70 AF-S lens set to its closest focussing distance (approximately 32 cm from the front of the lens). The two images (1) and (2) clearly show the impact of the different minimum focussing distance on the perspective achieved when both are set to 28 mm. The really interesting comparison is between shots (1) and (3), image (3) has been made with a 28-70 mm lens set to 62 mm, again at the minimum focussing distance rendering the jar of Marmite at approximately the same size as in (1). The change in focal length from 28 mm to 62 mm has produced a huge consequent effect on the background perspective; compressing the scene and foreshortening the background distance, depth of field is also consequently shallower.

These Marmite jar examples are a bit abstract - on the right are some real world examples that shows this principle in context.

Placing the main subject on the limit of the 17-35's minimum focussing distance results in the distance from near to far being expanded, increasing the overall impression of depth throughout the scene.

This works best when the main subject is positioned to one side of the frame (as in all the examples on the right). In this way plenty of room is created to the side of the subject allowing a large proportion of the background to be included in the frame.

This technique requires care in use because it requires the camera to be so close to the subject. With the close focussing of the 17-35 being just 12 cm from the front of the lens this can be extremely intimidating for people, it may even be construed as threatening. With fast-paced action, getting this close to a subject can also be dangerous. Looking through the finder it's very easy to underestimate how close to the subject you really are.

The three images on the right demonstrate situations where I've used the close minimum focussing distance of the 17-35 AF-S to exaggerate the perspective of the scene, including a large proportion of background information and keeping this acceptably sharp to allow the background elements to remain recognizable.

All these examples include main subjects that are particularly suited to getting in really close - the dogs are naturally curious (and likely were seeing their reflection in my lens) and were wiling to let me get nose to nose with them. The statue and flower were (unsurprisingly) equally easy to get close to in this way.

All three of these images were taken at the wide end of the 17-35's zoom range to maximize the effect.

Using the lens in this way really tests the optical quality of the lens, thankfully the sharp optics mean the background elements, even though they may not be pin sharp are recognizable and more importantly distortion free and without corner falloff. The top image of the hounds differs in this respect - the top-left corner is very soft - this is not due to the lens optics however - just the result of being licked by one of the dogs when I got too close - proving an unexpected benefit of keeping a UV filter on the lens.

The close minimum focussing distance also affects the zone of acceptably sharp focus that can be achieved with this lens. I frequently use zone focussing with the 17-35 AF-S (a technique I've brought into my SLR photography from using a rangefinder) to allow me to be prepared in advance of a fleeting photographic opportunity. Given the minimum focusing distance of the 17-35 I'm able to zone focus to render elements in the scene sharp even when they're very close to me.

All the example images to the right were made with a 17-35 AF-S set to 17 mm on a D200 body.

Close focussing has allowed the near subject in all these examples to be rendered sharp and occupy a large proportion of the frame, and also the inclusion of a large proportion of background detail