Replace the KM 17-35 F2.8-4 D, with what?

[Greg Beetham]

Please disregard my recommedation of the CZ16-80, I thought the QC problems were only during the introductory stages, and after this amount of time they would have been fixed.
Greg

[David Kilpatrick]

My advice to anyone interested in this lens is ALWAYS to buy from a place where you can try it, or return it. What gets missed out of the reviews is the exceptional quality of image that a good example of the 16-80mm produces - something about the balance of overall and micro contrast, colour and sharpness which is just not found in any of the other kit lenses or third party options. People who have repeated problems with QC affected samples and return all of them never get to use the lens properly, and never see the difference it makes to everyday results. Also, it is much better for sharp wide open field coverage than the 16-105mm although that lens is better in build quality and has less mechanical vignetting.

So I'm in the odd position of using this lens as my main lens - all the time - and knowing that it gets excellent results, but having to tell others that they could get a lemon unless they can check the intended purchase and maybe pick an invididual lens. To get four and 'decentering' is very unusual - assuming the writer means a shifting image (moving off axis during zooming).

David

[calpon]

I'll add that I have had my Z16-80 for 11 months. I did not have to return any to get a perfect copy. I use this lens often and it still works and looks like the day it was taken out of the sealed box.
This my not mean much to any of you, but I compared the CZ to my Sony 70-200 SSM at 70-80 at identical apertures and found the CZ to my more to mike liking. It just has something that I can't explain that makes the images more 3D/realistic.

[[SiC]]

Don't sell the 17-35mm until we know how well they work on full frame!

Why not?
I'll probably not sell it anyway, but interested in hearing why
I suppose you mean the "cropped" APS-C format of the A900 since the 17-35 is a D design?

I think the Tamron is the most interesting lens in this segment right now (for me), just need my salary back to start stash' the cash

BR,
/Zeb!

[01af]

Don't sell the 17-35mm until we know how well they work on full frame!

I suppose you mean the "cropped" APS-C format of the A900 ...?

He said full frame, and that means 35-mm full-frame format (= 24 × 36 mm).

... since the 17-35 is a D design?

"D" stands for distance encoder and that means the lens supports ADI functionality. Of course, the AF 17-35 mm 1:2.8-4 (D) is a full-frame format lens. I guess the new SAL 16-35 mm 1:2.8 Z will be better---but at 10× the price.

-- Olaf

[[SiC]]

I suppose you mean the "cropped" APS-C format of the A900 ...?

He said full frame, and that means 35-mm full-frame format (= 24 × 36 mm).

... since the 17-35 is a D design?

"D" stands for distance encoder and that means the lens supports ADI functionality. Of course, the AF 17-35 mm 1:2.8-4 (D) is a full-frame format lens. I guess the new SAL 16-35 mm 1:2.8 Z will be better---but at 10× the price.

-- Olaf

Ok, my bad - I thought that the D meant it was for APS-C sensor type cameras only... may have confused it with some other manufacturers nomenclature (?)
I know what FF means, but since I thought that a "D" type lens wouldn't cut it I assumed the cropped APS-C format of A900 would be used.

/Z!

[m-a]

Ok, my bad - I thought that the D meant it was for APS-C sensor type cameras only... may have confused it with some other manufacturers nomenclature (?)
I know what FF means, but since I thought that a "D" type lens wouldn't cut it I assumed the cropped APS-C format of A900 would be used.
/Z!

That would be "DT" for Sony, Minolta, KonicaMinolta.

[m-a]

I pretty happy with the lens but quite often feel it's a bit short... So in due time (when I stack up a big enough money pile) I'm thinking of replacing it with something else.
/Zeb!

How about complementing it with a reasonable zoom, rather than replacing it? Unless you fear switching lenses often, that may work. (OK, you have an 18-70 there but there must be a reason why you got the 17-35, that would likely be speed or quality)

[KevinBarrett]

[Sic], did you ever decide on or purchase a new lens?

Almost a month into my Tamron 17-50 and it is a very nice lens to own. The spot on the front element cleaned away nicely after I got stuck in a bind with B&H Photo(I decided to exchange for another copy but they didn't have any more and couldn't tell me when they would).

I rarely find myself needing anything longer than 50mm, but more often want something a little wider outdoors. Indoors, however, the Tamron is a dream come true; I never have to worry about stopping it down for sharpness as it doesn't really give up anything wide open. The constant aperture throughout the zoom range will spoil you as well, and I wonder if I'll ever get another lens without it. An added benefit of this lens being APS-C only is that the lens hood is substantially more effective, crowding closer to the angle of view than a super-wide FF lens hood will. I have to work to get any lens flare and I see ghosting only in extreme circumstances. CA at F/2.8 can be discovered in the corners only at about 300% view.

a700, 35mm, f/5.6, 1/60 sec., ISO 800

100% crop, in camera jpg, no processing

[[SiC]]

How about complementing it with a reasonable zoom, rather than replacing it? Unless you fear switching lenses often, that may work. (OK, you have an 18-70 there but there must be a reason why you got the 17-35, that would likely be speed or quality)

Hi!
Nah, I have zooms to cover the range from 17-300mm but with the 17-35 I find that I have to switch a bit too often to be really practical.
(I don't own a 18-70 yet if you read my original post more carefully )
I bought the 17-35 simply because it seemed to be a great lens and my D7D was in a kit with the 28-100 and that wasn't enough of a wide angle for me.

But I'm more set now on keeping the 17-35 and still buy a similar lens with more zoom like the Tammy 17-50.

BR,
/Zeb!

[[SiC]]

[Sic], did you ever decide on or purchase a new lens?

Hi Kevin!

No I didn't actually. As I was on parental leave for almost seven months my income has been very sparse and it wasn't until today I received my first real paycheck for quite some time
I will start to save some money but since there are so many things I want I don't really know right now where to start my shopping spree Guess I'll have to wait and see when the funding has increased a bit
(I'd also like to have an A700... Santa, are you listening?)

Almost a month into my Tamron 17-50 and it is a very nice lens to own. The spot on the front element cleaned away nicely after I got stuck in a bind with B&H Photo(I decided to exchange for another copy but they didn't have any more and couldn't tell me when they would).

I rarely find myself needing anything longer than 50mm, but more often want something a little wider outdoors. Indoors, however, the Tamron is a dream come true; I never have to worry about stopping it down for sharpness as it doesn't really give up anything wide open. The constant aperture throughout the zoom range will spoil you as well, and I wonder if I'll ever get another lens without it. An added benefit of this lens being APS-C only is that the lens hood is substantially more effective, crowding closer to the angle of view than a super-wide FF lens hood will. I have to work to get any lens flare and I see ghosting only in extreme circumstances. CA at F/2.8 can be discovered in the corners only at about 300% view.

The lens seems real nice Kevin, thanks for sharing

BR,
/Zeb!

[KevinBarrett]

Yeah well, I have to give the lens some good exposure again after posting my crummy test shots. It's been good to me, and saved my butt at a very poorly lit wedding.

[Mark K]

My purchase of 16-80, after advice from DK and many others, was the best. It attaches almost permanently on my A700

[alphaPDX]

I have a nice copy of the Tamron 17-35, and have supplemented it with a Minolta 35-105 N. This is small, light and sharp, with its only drawback being a mere 3x (about 50-155 in aps-c terms). I have days when I'd prefer a single solution; the most highly regarded seems to be the 18-250 in Sony or Tam. That's too much range for my preference (like having all-time 4wd and living in a mild climate), and fainter than the 17-35 - I prefer sharper optics that zoom less, though it means taking my chances with dust by swapping lenses now and then.