17-35 AF-S Image Quality
The image quality of this lens is excellent, from a user perspective I've consistently produced extremely sharp, contrasty images especially in the range of f/4 to f/8. The 17-35 has high resolving power allowing images to be enlarged and or cropped without quality degrading and distortion that is controlled very well given the wide focal lengths covered.
Distortion is the potential quality issue that concerns me least since I rarely notice the effects in everyday use however, every once in a while distortion will have an obvious impact on an image - as with the chimney of the steam engine for example on the right. The optimum flatness of field is around 24 mm.
I find the 17-35 gives great, even illumination throughout the frame so corner fall off isn't concern either even at f/2.8 on a DX sensor.
I used to consider the corners slightly soft when I was using the lens on a film body but on a DX sensor thanks to the 1.5 x crop factor I no longer have any issue with the sharpness in the corners (see the enlargement of the grass in the corner of the frame below for an example of the fantastic corner sharpness obtainable at f/5.6). For the best quality I try and keep the aperture set between f/4 and f/11.
When this lens was first introduced in 1999 many users reported issues with image quality. My sample is quite a late production model and judging from close scrutiny of the thousands of images I've taken with it Nikon have greatly reduced the image quality problems that many early reviews cited.
As I couldn't afford to by one of these lenses new I was forced to accept what was available in the secondhand market and as there are commonly issues reported with the image quality between samples I was concerned with what I might end up with. As it turned out my sample delivers fantastic quality and continues to do so after I've been using it for many years now, regardless of what conditions I subject it to.
One of the greatest aspect of this lens that I've found with my style of photography is its ability to resist flare and ghosting (see the examples on the right). I had to hunt for a long time to find an image that showed a trace of flare (see below) and even then it's minimal. At times when I have thought flare might be an issue I've just used my left hand as an extension of the lens hood and this has provided adequate protection.
Where's the catch..?
As far as image quality is concerned (and having spent around three hours reviewing my images made with this lens trying to find examples of softness, fall off, distortion and all the other ills that can befall a wide angle zoom) I can't really fault the 17-35.
I have taken images where out of focus areas have not been recorded as smoothly as I'd like but having inspected them closely my criticism would be more to do with the way the DX sensor has recorded the scene due to the greater depth of field compared to 35 mm film rather than any issue with the lens.
The one caveat I would put on the above comments is that I try to steer clear of using f/2.8 where possible. While it's a great option to be able to gain an extra stop when needed I do see a reduction in overall quality at f/2.8. Reduced sharpness is not so much the issue, but the rendition of out of focus areas does suffer at maximum aperture and the effects of chromatic aberration increase. In low light I'm more inclined to increase ISO by a stop and use f/4 rather than open up to f/2.8 and risk a loss of quality.
|