Emceee said:
Is there really a big sample variation in these lenses? They are going pretty cheap right now used, not sure that this is a good or a bad sign.

No - They are just old and have been replaced by two better lenses - 14-24mm & 16-35mm.

Tokina's 16-28 is rated very high as well - might be worth a look.

Not sure what you consider cheap, but I got one a couple of years ago for $1,200. One cosmetic nick, but otherwise pristine. You'll love it. But definitely check it.

1st, This is my goto lens. It lives on my D3s and before that on my D2h.

2nd I don't believe that there a large sample variation in the lens. I believe there was a problem with early digital cameras like the D200 that had an AA filter that was a bit too strong and gave many to think their lenses were not as sharp as with film.

3rd Always test and check the lens because there are lemons or hidden damage with used and new products.

If they are going cheap get a bargin.

framer

Is there really a big sample variation in these lenses? They are going pretty cheap right now used, not sure that this is a good or a bad sign.

Ya, I have pushed it to 1250 before but if I can help it I want to keep it at 800 and under.

Only 800? I find the ISO 1250 to be very acceptable in raw on my D90. Ironically before I got my 14-24mm f2.8 my D90 with a 17-35mm f/2.8 was my prime night shooter. If I needed longer I used my 50mm f1.8 (I have a 28-70mm too but the viewfinder will get a bit brighter with the 50mm). To each his/her own I guess...

Ya, I know what you are saying, but I think I will keep my 50mm as my low light lens. I figure once I get the 24-70 it will be the only lens on my camera. My D90 still isn't that great in low light to get away with a 2.8 lens so I want to keep the 50mm for that, I love being able to shoot at 800 iso at f2 or f1.4 when needed.

Once you pick up a 24-70 you'll probably never use the 50mm much its that good. Except maybe in really low light. The 50 is quite expensive and could probably be traded in towards say the 135mm which is quite expensive too.

Ya, the kit I'm working on building is the 24-70mm and the 135mm f/2. I have the 50mm 1.4G and love it. I figure adding those two will get me zoom that will do it all and a longer prime. If I ever decide to try out another wide I'll check out that Tokina, I have always heard good things about it.

The 11-16mm Tokina is super cheap if you can find one used it would only set you back $500-$600! How's that for a wide angle bargain! Its pro grade 2.8 super sharp for DX and takes filters. Ideally it would be nice to have the 17-35 and the 24-70, but I understand it is also nice to trade the 17-35 in towards the 24-70mm because of cash factors. The 11-16, 24-70 and maybe a 70-300mm VR would be a killer DX combo for anyone I think and very reasonable price range for the setup.

Niz said:
See I only need the 24-70 for the way I like to shoot. I know it only ends up being 35mm at the widest on my D90, but that is more then enough for me. I have always been a fan of normal to long lenses.

Niz,
you'll be much happier with the 24-70...it just won't be wide. You can always get/rent a 16-35/4 for the wide end if you need though.....
Neil

See I only need the 24-70 for the way I like to shoot. I know it only ends up being 35mm at the widest on my D90, but that is more then enough for me. I have always been a fan of normal to long lenses.

Ok I understand the 24-70mm is a great do all lens you will really enjoy it. Is it possible to keep both? They are both so useful. 24mm is not wide enough on my D700 though. How about a 11-16mm for you DX sensor? Great wide lens.

kanuck - it is a nice lens, but ended up being to wide for me and I'm shooting a D90. I thought I would like it, but now end up never using it. I'm trying to sell it now to go for a 24-70.

Niz why are you trying to sell yours?

I believe he means a standard CLA - Clean, lub, and align. Correct or not, allot of people call it getting it re-calibrated.

I have never heard the 17-35mm ever getting updated. The 16-35 VR is the update.

kanuck said:
Oh and one more thing guys, be careful with frequent sample variation with this lens. I have seen some terrible samples especially when shot on digital. I haven't used this lens since way back when I shot it with my old F90x and my F100. My brother used it with his D200 and was not happy so he eventually went over to Canon. If you are buying this lens brand new it should be fine, but any used copies should probably get calibrated I think. Just a heads up anyways :)

Does Nikon even do calibrations? I know Leica does, but I'm not sure if I've heard of such a program. Is it NPS only?

If I were you I would try it out first before getting it unless you know you will love it. I got one and am now trying to sell it.

Oh and one more thing guys, be careful with frequent sample variation with this lens. I have seen some terrible samples especially when shot on digital. I haven't used this lens since way back when I shot it with my old F90x and my F100. My brother used it with his D200 and was not happy so he eventually went over to Canon. If you are buying this lens brand new it should be fine, but any used copies should probably get calibrated I think. Just a heads up anyways :)

Yes you don't need VR for wide anyways as well Kyoshinikon. There won't be any refresh for this lens I believe as well because of the newish 16-35mm. I'd say you are safe go for it! Fantastic classic lens.

Haven't seen anything yet... Just get it I love mine and would never trade it in for a 16-35mm f/4. The 14-24mm f2.8 is also fantastic...

Finally ready to purchase the Nikon 17-35mm f/2.8 and wanted to drop in and ask if there is any 'rumors' of an update before I drop the big dollars on this lens??

Thanks for your comments :)