Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S Nikkor

Lens Reviews / Nikon Lenses i Not yet tested
17-35mm $1,991
average price
image of Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S Nikkor

Your purchases support this site

Buy the Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S Nikkor

(From Nikon lens literature) ED glass element reduces chromatic aberrations providing superior optical performance - even at maximum aperture. The standard lens for photojournalism and travel photography. Perfect for use with a film or a digital SLR. M/A switch for fast transitions from AF to manual focus. No power drain when manually focusing.

Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S Nikkor

Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF AF-S Nikkor User Reviews

9.2/10 average of 17 review(s) Build Quality 9.6/10 Image Quality 9.1/10
  • 10 out of 10 points and recommended by mrcontinental (7 reviews)
    Built like a tank, f2.8, sharp, aperture ring great for older bodies.
    A little pricey, but it's professional caliber

    Still a top performer. Built to professional standards and it will out last us all. Color and contrast are top notch. Slightly soft wide open in the corners but unless you are enlarging for billboards most folks won't notice. One of my favorites! If you can find a good sample used go for it.

    reviewed January 8th, 2014 (purchased for $1,400)
  • 7 out of 10 points and not recommended by dw_js (3 reviews)
    built well
    soft corneres, CA

    I originally purchased the lens to use on a D2x. It was great then because I didn't get to see the edges of the image forward to a D700 and the edges are soft. I can't stop down enough to get rid of the softness. I have tested the lens at all apertures and focal lengths and have found that between 17 and 24 the edges are unusable IMHO. For those with cropped sensors, it's fine. Very well built and solid. I have seen and used the new 16-35 and would highly recommend that lens over this one.

    reviewed July 24th, 2013 (purchased for $1,750)
  • 10 out of 10 points and recommended by mohawk51 (5 reviews)
    It's a Nikon!!
    None noted

    Great lens. No complaints. I just got back from a 4,000 mile road trip. Took this lens along with a 50mm and a 80-200mm 2.8 95% of the 300+ pictures taken were with the 17-35. The sharpness, contrast & resolution are just fantastic. As always!

    reviewed July 31st, 2012 (purchased for $1,200)
  • 10 out of 10 points and recommended by Robin Leech (2 reviews)
    Very sharp, even to edges; smooth handling;
    A bit on the heavy side

    pairs nicely with the 28-70 mm f2.8 D Nikkor for work, but packing the two of heavy. If I am walking, I often select one or the other, rather than carry both.
    I know there are lighter lenses, but they do not have the image quality that these 2 do.

    reviewed August 3rd, 2011 (purchased for $1,400)
  • 10 out of 10 points and recommended by mtravella (6 reviews)
    outstanding optics

    As good as it gets for a wide angle zoom lens.

    reviewed January 10th, 2010 (purchased for $1,700)
  • 9 out of 10 points and recommended by hanimex (1 reviews)
    picture and build quality, fast aperture, good zoom range for all day shooting
    high price, weight and high risk to get a bad sample

    I bought mine November 08 with view of the coming D700. First test on my D300 were very disapointing, especially at 17mm wide open. Even the 18-200 VR was better, not to mention the superb Tokina 12-24. The bad performance was confirmed with my new D700. I took it to Nikon central service in Germany (Duesseldorf) and they told me that it's all within the factory tolerance but they offered me fine tuning for 130€. After this tuning the performance was even worse.
    In a secound trial the lens became the performance I initially expected. No chance for the Tokina anywhere and in any format (FX/DX).Nikon seems to have really trouble to adjust this lens in the correct way . They tell you like "all within spec" and take additional money to deliver the expected performance.
    Very risky to buy!!!

    reviewed April 1st, 2009 (purchased for $1,430)
  • 10 out of 10 points and recommended by andre_ (31 reviews)
    built quality, AF, flare resistance
    upper focal in DX

    This lens was born for street photos, and today is still the best choiche for it.
    With DX DSLR (D2x) it works very well, with the only limit in upper focal leinght.
    From f5.6 the quality (definition, CA....) is the best, and in DX is better than many prime lenses. In FF (D700) is as the same level, with a little bit more flexibility.
    The body is fantastic, and the resistance to water, sand and other is perfect.
    In FF it comes back to the original project, as a strictly street lens, and it works very, very well.

    reviewed December 8th, 2008 (purchased for $1,100)
  • 10 out of 10 points and recommended by ddt332 (6 reviews)
    Best landscape lens ever!
    No complain at all

    This is hands down the best landscape lens made by Nikon. Compared with Nikon's new 14-24, this lens might not as sharp at corners wide open, but you can't use any filters on14-24. For indoor work you probably need 14-24, however this lens is no doubt THE best landscape lens made by Nikon!

    reviewed September 23rd, 2008 (purchased for $1,450)
  • 3 out of 10 points and not recommended by ddk (3 reviews)
    Seems to be built well
    Price, Image Quality, AF

    This is one of those lenses that I always wonder what people see in it. Its very soft wide open and even up to f5.6 where it becomes acceptable but is never really crisp even at f11.

    The image quality is quite average and a little too contrasty for my taste. I guess Nikon wanted to compensate for the lenses IQ with extra contrast. The AF system is slow and not so accurate, I guess a limitation of all wide angles, but this is a $1500 lens. Overall I'm very dissatisfied with my purchaseee and can't recommend at its price, I guess I'd feel different if it cost $600.

    reviewed August 22nd, 2007 (purchased for $1,350)
  • 10 out of 10 points and recommended by italy74 (8 reviews)
    The best wideangle I've ever had

    It's definitely the best wideangle i've ever had. From finish to optical quality, it's real an outstanding lens for contrast and resistance to flare, and I enjoy it even more since I'm still shooting with film cameras. No distortions or any kind of flaws/issue on my copy. Its reputation is very well deserved.

    reviewed April 23rd, 2007 (purchased for $2,470)
  • 10 out of 10 points and recommended by gadgetguy (62 reviews)
    awesome image and build quality

    One of the finest ultrawide zooms ever made. On a film (the only full frame Nikons) SLR, this delivers superb IQ from edge to edge.

    Build quality is up there - this feels solid and performs likewise. A perfect photojournalism workhorse lens for a F100 or F5.

    reviewed December 31st, 2006
  • 10 out of 10 points and not recommended by Matthew Saville (21 reviews)
    build quality, image quality, apeture
    price, (but worth it) size / weight

    This lens is sort of a black sheep right now. Here's the deal:

    If you shoot with any current Nikon DSLR, you can get the 17-55 f/2.8 DX and you'll have an extra 20mm on the telephoto end.

    Image quality is pretty much the same, (I've shot with both) and some even say that the 17-55 DX can perform better.

    Unless of cousre, you are waiting for Nikon to release an FF DSLR, or unless you still shoot with 35mm film bodies. If that's the case, then either hold onto the 17-35 you already have, or pick one up for cheap on Ebay while everybody is selling theirs so they can get a 17-55... Hah!


    reviewed December 29th, 2006
  • 10 out of 10 points and recommended by wl2 (7 reviews)
    Very well-built, sharp and bright
    Heavy compared to the Canon equivalent

    As the other reviewer already mentioned, the lens is sharp and well-built.

    I love its range for architecture when I was using the film camera. With the DSLR crop factor, it becomes a normal zoom lens which I used mainly for family photos.

    Highly recommended!

    reviewed December 24th, 2006
  • 10 out of 10 points and recommended by mbunge (10 reviews)
    Very sharp, fast, very reliable
    Kind of heavy

    I bought this lens six years ago and it performs now like it did the day I bought it. I bought this to use on my F100 and was a great wide angle lens for film. I'm shooting a D200 now and the 1.5 magnification factor has taken away some of the drama I could create with the 17mm focal length on film. It's still the lens I use 50 percent of the time.

    This lens has never disappointed me. Images are sharp. The 2.8 aperture lets me shoot at 1/25 with no trouble. It's great for groups, travel, and event photography when you're in tight spaces. I love this lens.

    reviewed December 13th, 2006 (purchased for $1,100)
  • 10 out of 10 points and recommended by nohm (11 reviews)
    great build, image quality is
    on the heavy side, and would be better if range was a tad longer than 35mm

    The lens for photojournalism. It seems that many people don't know much about this lens and would rather take interest in the newer 17-55 f2.8 DX. In my experiences with both lenses, I would consider the 17-35 the better performer across the board unless you're in need of the extra 36-55 that I found somewhat of a wishful "could have" for this 17-35.

    Although my copy was a bit soft at 17mm end, all around this lens is sharp, minimal on chromatic aberrations, and contrast is excellent. Again, because this is pro line, the aperture is constant f2.8 throughout, so it's great for low light. Creates realistic bokeh.

    reviewed November 27th, 2006 (purchased for $1,000)
  • 9 out of 10 points and recommended by colourperfect_co_uk (18 reviews)
    image quality (sharpness), build quality
    doesn't go really wide on D200, price new

    Bought mine second hand on ebay and have been very pleased so far.

    Already had the 12-24 and thought I could improve image quality above 17mm.

    Built like a tank and produced excellent image quality and sharpness. As every the best quality is stopped down. Use mine for landscape work at f8 to f11.

    Much cheaper second hand than a 17-55 and will suite when Nikon go full frame in the future.

    On the con side its big and heavy.

    Found it resists flare well when stopped down. A little CA wide open but much better than the 12-24 when stopped down.

    Go for it ;-)

    reviewed November 21st, 2006 (purchased for $900)
  • 9 out of 10 points and recommended by jeans (15 reviews)
    IQ, build
    short zoom range, expensive

    Bought it several months ago to use with my Nikon D70 after getting frustrated with the performance 18-70 (D70's kit lens).

    Built to last ages
    Image quality is superb and it's the most important thing when wide angle is concerned. There are so many details to keep that anything lower just won't do. Even this lens performs only acceptably compared to MF results.
    The distortions, though present, are negligible (unlike with my 18-70/3.5-4.5 lens).
    This lens doesn't vignette on x1.5 crop factor DSLRs even wide open (but then who shoots landscapes at f/2.8 ?)
    F/2.8 (though not too useful for a landscape lens like this one is nice to have).
    Focus is very fast and sure due to AF-S technology (less important for landscapes).

    CA is visible on high-contrast scenes like bright sky seen through dark tree branches
    The lens isn't too sharp at f/2.8, though it's not a serious issue with a landscape lens such a this one
    Zoom range is too short for general use, but then again it's not your usual walkaround lens
    very expensive - bought it used for about 1300$ - living in Israel has *some* disadvantages ;-)

    Bottom line:
    A great lens for landscapes, so-so as a walkaround lens.
    Of course 17mm isn't too wide on a DX camera, so you might want to consider a (cheaper) Nikkor 12-24 or its 3rd party rivals.

    reviewed November 16th, 2006 (purchased for $1,300)