Further readings for the Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED
To provide photographers with a broader perspective about mobiles, lenses and cameras, here are links to articles, reviews, and analyses of photographic equipment produced by DxOMark, renown websites, magazines or blogs.
Although Sony has concentrated on the E-mount lens range for their mirrorless Alpha range, it hasn’t entirely forgotten the A-mount lens range. This lens is an update to the highly-regarded Zeiss-designed full-frame 16-35mm f2.8 SSM model. Read on to find out how well this updated zoom lens performs.
Introduced in 2007 alongside the AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED and Nikon’s first full-frame DSLR – the 12-megapixel Nikon D3 – this lens was a first of its kind and set new standards for image quality for ultra-wide angle lenses. How does this lens perform on demanding high-resolution bodies, such as the 36-MPix Nikon D800? DxOMark has the answer.
Launched in spring 2010, the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f/4G ED VR was a very good surprise for Nikon enthusiasts who previously had only a choice between the very good but expensive (and heavy) AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED and the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED.
Well same here, as I use one and have not ever seen the CA in my RAW files that is a bright warning red here on the 17-35mm Nikkor Global map, let alone the 1-3MP resolution on the borders at 28mm. Where did you get your sample from, and why not send it back? As neither I have owned and used were anything like what's here. At 17mm its not sharp until f5.6 on the edges on a D800 and crap in the corners still, but otherwise it is a better lens than the 16-35mm and the new 18-35mm which gets a rave review here but is three times slower (f4.5) at the 35mm end. The 16-35mm NEEDs VR as it is so long you cannot hold it still, whereas short squat dense heavy lenses do not get as easily moved
I shopped around quite a bit before I bought that lens a couple of years ago, and have been totallly satisfied with it so far. As far as I could tell at the time, it was considered an excellent choice, at least before the 16-35 mm lens was available. The information I found at the time was not as technical as what I can find here, but since I'm not a pro nor a technical data specialist, I felt comfortable enough to shell out the 1700-ish $.
If the 17-35 mm gets such dismal results with your panel of tests, how could I use any of your data to help me choose new lenses?! I know numbers are not the only means to describe a lens, but still, showing this lens at the poor end of your spectrum is quite disturbing. I won't stop using it, of course, but I will probably more rely on personal opinions than DXO Mark's results to help me choose new lenses.