Photoclubalpha

Go for the Minolta 17-35/3.5 G if you can find one. Fantastic lens with great Minolta colours. Not quite as good as CZ at extremities but half the price. I never liked the 17-35/2.8-4D. But it is fair value at current prices.

http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Minolta-AF- ... ens26.html

Thanks for the recommendations Mark x2

Artington, there are a couple of interesting user reviews on the KM 17-35 F/2.8 D lens in SLRgear.

classiccameras wrote:Artington, there are a couple of interesting user reviews on the KM 17-35 F/2.8 D lens in SLRgear.

These things are always subjective to a degree but my unequivocal opinion is as I stated. The G is a much better lens IMO although I imagine the D is good enough for small prints.

artington wrote:

classiccameras wrote:Artington, there are a couple of interesting user reviews on the KM 17-35 F/2.8 D lens in SLRgear.

These things are always subjective to a degree but my unequivocal opinion is as I stated. The G is a much better lens IMO although I imagine the D is good enough for small prints.

I will certainly keep my eye out for one Artington. With these special second-hand lenses you seem to be able to buy and sell on with out losing much so they are good to try.

If you really want to go rectangular WIDE, try the all manual Samyang 14mm. Its very inexpensive, yet quite sharp with little CA and quite good flair control for such a lens. The geometric 'mustache' distortion is very complex but the cheap plug-in or standalone, PTLens, controls it very acceptably...to the point that I can perceive no distortion. Of course in many images this type of distortion is irrelevant but when it is, its easily correctable. I haven't found an acceptably accurate ACR lens profile for this lens yet. The only strange value-minus feature is that the distance scale is often off. It can be easily readjusted apparently but I compensate.

Given huge DOF, the real issue with any 14mm on FF isn't getting objects in focus, it controlling what is OUT of focus.

Bruce

Ouch !
Somehow I missed multiple posts recommending this lens. Just consider my post reinforcement:)

Bruce

Kurt Munger's review of the Minolta 17-35 F/3.5 G lens is quite surprising.

As said, these reviews can be subjective and in some instances a poor copy or good copy may have been the test lens.
I think Kurt ends up by saying the difference between the D and G lens is marginal rather than dramatic.

A lot depends on which format you are using the lens, on FF the D lens is just a 'good' performer, but on an APS-C camera due to the crop factor, a better optical performance is achieved. The same criterior applies to the G lens.
Physically the G lens IMO is far more appealing and less bulky with a sensible front element/hood size than the D lens.
Kurt told me in a PM, if you need your lens to start at 17-mm wide then the Tamron 17-50 F/2.8 is the best option and he even preferred that to the 16-80!

Reviews are subjective and subject to testing/copy variation. There have been a few reviews that suggest the G lens isn't as good as the D one, but I would tread with caution esp with Kurt's reviews.

I've never used the G lens so cannot comment, though I find the Tamron 17-35mm (same design as the KM version) to be quite a good lens for the price
No doubt the Zeiss 16-35mm is the top performer, but it's fairly hefty price wise.

Sigma do a 12-24mm FF Lens and it seems to be popular enough and a not that scary price either, it's not that fast but then does speed matter here?
DK might have a better idea of what lenses to go for

I picked up the KM versions of the 17-35 and the 28-75 when one of the local retailers basically had a fire sale when KM announced that they had sold to Sony. I also picked up the CZ 16-35 some 3-4 years ago for about 75% of what they sell for now. The CZ is of course a better performer but you pay a lot for that bit extra.

The 17-35 is a more comfortable lens to carry which is always a plus when you are on foot. And if you accept the limitations of all zooms that they are no great shakes at both ends of their range, it is a decent performer when stopped down for landscape use. It doesn't have that CZ look and bight and doesn't do so well close to wide open but even here I find it a competent performer.

Depending on your requirements and your PP software you may need to put that bit extra into getting that something special out of what is a lower contrast lens.

Yes, Kurt does admit that he possibly had a good copy of the 17-35 D lens. As you know, its made by Tamron for KM so I suspect there won't be a huge diffence in performance between the 2 badges.

Thanks for all of the further thoughts on UWAs. I have picked up a previously enjoyed Sigma 12-24 mk1 ( ) but still waiting for the opportunity to put it through its paces after being side tracked by the new 70-400 at the other extreme.