steve phillipps , Feb 27, 2010; 01:41 p.m.
I've had the AF-S 17-35 2.8 for a few years but never used it that much. The silent wave motor packed in (and will cost £430 to repair!!!) but that's not a big deal for a wide zoom.
Thing is I've never been too thrilled by the performance. Have I got a bad sample, and is there anything obvious that could be out of alignment etc.?
For example it's nowhere near as good as the 50 1.8af at either f2.8 or f4 - is this a surprise?
Steve
Michael Axel 
, Feb 27, 2010; 01:51 p.m.
I've thoroughly enjoyed this lens on a DX format. The 50mm f/1.8 is one of the sharpest and most perfect color and contrast controlled lenses you can buy (though inexpensive). So the comparison between a sweet prime and an aging zoom is not apples to apples. But you possibly have a bad sample. I've experienced this with having owned many 60mm Micros before I got a good one, and the same with a 50mm f/1.2.
Shun Cheung 
, Feb 27, 2010; 02:06 p.m.
I have only used one sample of the 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S, mine. I think it is an excellent lens. I have pointed out a few times that I have tested 6 different copies of the 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S; they are so consistent that I tend to dismiss those discussion about bad samples.
I have no idea why Steve is not trilled with his lens. However,
For example it's nowhere near as good as the 50 1.8af at either f2.8 or f4 - is this a surprise?
Comparing the 17-35 to a 50mm/f1.8 is totally meaningless. There isn't any overlap between their focal length range.
Peter Hamm 
, Feb 27, 2010; 02:21 p.m.
I've used only one sample of the lens and it was beyond exceptional.
What exactly is wrong with it's performance?
steve phillipps , Feb 27, 2010; 03:37 p.m.
Shun, I tested the 50 and the 17-35 with the subject covering the same amount of the frame (ie moving the camera further back for the 50mm shot). It's not exactly the same of course but it's a long way from meaningless - you can still judge relative sharpness.
Peter, it's just not as sharp as I thought it should be considering all the amazing things I've heard about it (including in your post!)
Here's the test shots.
Steve
steve phillipps , Feb 27, 2010; 03:39 p.m.
steve phillipps , Feb 27, 2010; 03:42 p.m.
And here's a real world example. Think it was 1/125 f4.
Am I just expecting too much?
Steve
Edward Ingold , Feb 27, 2010; 03:50 p.m.
What exactly is wrong with it's performance?
If we were talking about cars, I'd suggest looking at the "nut" behind the wheel. What I mean to say is that technique is the limiting factor for the performance of any lens that hasn't been bounced down the stairs - careful composition and focus, a good tripod and smooth release.
17-35/2.8 AFS with D2x, 1/320 @ f/6.3
Constance Cook , Feb 27, 2010; 04:04 p.m.
It is one of my 'always carry' lenses it's so good.
Conni
steve phillipps , Feb 27, 2010; 04:06 p.m.
Edward, it can't be bad technique when you've got a locked-off shot with 2 lenses and one looks OK but the other one doesn't!
And a lens doesn't have to be "bounced down the stairs" to have issues. People have lenses brand new out of the box that are out of alignment etc. and not performing anything like as good as they should. Just trying to find out whether mine has some of problem or not. Any more useful suggestions to contribute?
Steve
