 |
| Read Ken Rockwell's Review here. |
The Three Dragons: According to popular lore, NIkon created a series of three zoom lenses and dubbed them the Three Dragons. While they all had maximum apertures of F 2.8, the combined focal length range varied from a maximum of 200mm to a minimum that varied with the most current high-speed zoom the company had to offer. The standby zoom ranges were the 70-200mm 2.8, the 24-70 2.8, and whatever the widest zoom lens happened to be at the time. Currently it is the 14-24 zoom, but before 2007, it was the 17-35mm 2.8, which is shown here. It was the last member of the trio that I purchased for a price that is best forgotten. It suffices to say I paid dearly to complete my collection, but never had cause to use it in the field. I tended to carry my 15-30 Sigma when reaching for a full-framed super wide angle lens, partly because the Sigma weighed only 21.9 ounces, compared to the Nikon's 26.3 ounce heft. That doesn't sound like much, but ounces become pounds when assembling a proper kit for an assignment where you can't park your car nearby, or more importantly, when it's mounted to a DSLR body and hanging from one's neck.
I freely admit that carrying those Three Dragons was certainly a knight's errand. The lenses were all heavy, and when coupled with two full-framed DSLR bodies (A D600 primary and a backup D700) it becomes a sizable burden. Now that my working system is a Fuji APS series of bodies and lenses, the performance of this enormous 17-35 is easily duplicated by my 10-24 F 4.0 zoom, which was the first lens I grabbed for a long time. When I finally got tired of the "stretch face" distortion created when working at short distances, I then made my 16-55 2.8 the first choice lens. It forced me to increase my minimum working distance and lessened the distortion considerably.
While the Sigma has a weight advantage, the Nikkor could accept 77mm filters, which allows me the protection of a protective filter and braving a landscape filled with thumbprints and wayward bits of airborne flotsam. |
| August 11, 2024 |
 |
August 11, 2024
|
 |
August 11, 2024
|
I had hoped to add some random field shots taken with the 17-35, but the combination of time and opportunity have not meshed successfully, so for the moment these early images must suffice. The difference in contrast and sharpness are apparent when viewed in post-production, but only hinted at when the image lands in a post. The lens is definitely a cut above the Sigma, but for the price, it should be.
Today, for one last hurrah, I hauled the lens out to Sausalito. I was hoping to make some photographs where this super-wide angle lens was in its element. However, most of it was pretty two-dimensional, although the exaggerated foreshortening inherent to such a lens can be observed. Here's today's harvest:
 |
| August 25, 2024 |
 |
August 25, 2024
|
 |
August 25, 2024
|
 |
August 25, 2024
|
 |
August 25, 2024
|
 |
August 25, 2024
|
These photos were taken in the light industrial Sausalito shoreline. There were body shops, electricians, and a few scattered marine-related businesses. I was surprised to find what appeared to be a rather nice restaurant called Anchorage 5, a place I might try some day. It's easy to speculate how the restaurant came to be. Perhaps it was the equivalent of the neighborhood restaurant for the residents of the houseboat community moored nearby.
So what's the point of carrying the lens if it is so infrequently used? I have to wonder if purchasing the Pergear 14mm F 2.8 might be easier on my shoulders, as it weighs only17 ounces. Also, I would probably have a more "normal" mounted on my camera, and deploy a superwide lens only the situation warranted. As such, the lighter Peargear, waiting patiently for its moment to shine, makes a bit more sense.
Incidentally, there's a speck of dust at the top edge of the frame the I need to address.
