文字及图片来源：http://www_geocities_com/Yosemite/Forest/2252/review4.htm
我自己很早就想做这样的一个测试，但是找不到20-35，在这里看到人家做的测试，由于这个网站在国内需要通过某些代理服务器才能看到，就先搬过来给大家看看。

Testing Criteria
Two separate tests were conducted using Fuji Velvia and Kodak 100VS films. Altogether four rolls of films were used for the two tests. For the first test, the lens was focused manually and confirmed by the camera’s built-in focus indicator. The lens was focused automatically for the second test. The slides were examined using a Nikon 8~16X loupe and this was sometimes supplemented with a 22X loupe from Peak.

Handling/First Impression
The AF-S 17~35mm balances well with the F5 being only slightly bigger and heavier than the AF 20~35mm. Both lenses felt comfortable in the hand with the F5. The supplied plastic lens hood(HB-23), which is scallop-shaped, is bigger than the hood(HB-8) that comes with the 20~35mm lens.

Operation
As with all AF-S lenses, the 17~35mm came with a M/A switch for the operator to switch between manual and autofocusing with manual fine tuning. This switch is actually easier to operate than the one on the 20~35mm lens which requires the operator to press a button before turning the M/A ring.

Like the AF-S 28~70mm f2.8D, there is no focus limiter on this lens.

The focusing and zooming rings on my 17~35mm lens was smooth but not as smooth as the 20~35mm. (It should be noted that on another AF-S 17~35mm, the focusing and zooming rings felt rough during turning).

Both the front barrels of these two lenses did not rotate during focusing and zooming, which makes the use of polarising filter handy. It should be noted that the recommended TCs for the AF-S lens is TC-14A and TC-201.

Autofocusing of the AF-S lens was fast, as to be expected of silent wave motor lenses, but was not significantly faster than the 20~35mm on a F5. However, the noise level was much lower.

Of worthy note here is the close focusing capability of the 17~35mm over the 20~35mm. The AF-S lens is capable of focusing as close as 6 inches away from the subject. The 20~35mm is only able to focus down to about 12 inches from the subject, which is more than adequate for me. If your preference is for closeup type of photography, perhaps the 17~35mm lens is made for you.

Construction
The AF-S lens is the first of such lenses to be made without the 'crinkle' finish so well known among all the professional lenses in the Nikon system. This has led some people to conclude that Nikon had cut corners in the construction of this lens. The plastic feel did not helped either. The front rubber grip for focusing also had a different design to it.

In contrast , the AF 20~35mm f2.8D has the traditional "crinkle" look and felt solid when held in the hands. This lens has enjoyed a fine reputation since its introduction some years back, especially among photojournalists.

Optical Performance
Yes, this is the moment we have been waiting for. Touted as the replacement of the 20~35mm, the 17~35mm was originally made to complement the new digital camera D1. But does it deliver the results?

At 17mm wide open, the lens was very soft at the corners. The centre image was better but still showed signs on softness. Colours were well defined and the images had good contrast. At f5.6, image sharpness improved at the centre as well as the corners. However, softness was still evident at the corners and I had to stop the lens down to f8 in order to obtain what I considered adequate centre and corner sharpness. Slight vignetting was noticed at f2.8. As there was no other lens of similar focal length, I could not compare the results at this focal length.

At 20mm wide open, the same softness was displayed at the corners. Centre sharpness seemed worse than at 17mm. In contrast, the 20~35mm lens at 20mm wide open showed better sharpness in the corners. Even at f5.6, the 20~35mm lens had better sharpness in the centre and corners than the 17~35mm lens. Slight vignetting was noticed at f2.8 on the AF-S lens.

Again, at the 24mm focal length, the 20~35mm lens performed better both in the centre and corners. The 20~35mm displayed very good sharpness in the centre wide open. No signs of vignetting was noticed at this focal length for both lenses.

The same performance was seen at 28mm. The AF-S lens just did not deliver the kind of sharpness I was expecting.

The AF-S 17~35mm turned in the worse performance at 35mm showing softness across the focal plane. This only improved slightly when stopped down to f5.6. Only at f8 did it performed satisfactorily in the corners and centre. The AF 20~35mm displayed a good level of sharpness at f2.8 and was very sharp at f5.6 with hardly any improvement when stopped further to f8.

Conclusion
There was one thing I could not help notice when I looked at all the images taken with both lenses. The AF 20~35mm lens produced warmer images than the 17~35mm(this could be attributed to the different brand of filters used - B+W & Nikon). The images made by the 17~35mm were cooler to the look. And although the 17~35mm lens brochure stated that vignetting would occur at 17mm when a polariser was used, I noticed only slight vignetting when I attached a Nikon polarising filter to this lens. Certainly, a Nikon polarising filter could be used on the AF-S 17~35mm lens.

To say that I was disappointed with the optical performance of AF-S 17~35mm f2.8D IF-ED is an understatement. At all focal lengths(except for 17mm which I wasn't able to make any comparison), it was clearly a loser when compared to the AF 20~35mm f2.8D lens. The optical performance ought to be better given the "extra" special glass incorporated into this lens. But it just did not deliver the results. About the only credit that could be given to this lens, other than the faster, silent and closer focusing, is the well controlled distortion despite the 17mm focal length.

Did you say I had a bad sample? I hope so. But that would put into question the Q.C. standards of Nikon.

The AF 20~35mm performed admirably and I will not hesitate to recommend this lens to anyone. This lens is a great performer and will do well for landscape work as well as for travels.

Meanwhile, I will try to test another AF-S 17~35mm lens and will report my findings again, if possible.

the objective of this review is to test the optical performance of the AF-S 17~35mm f2.8D IF-ED vs the AF 20~35mm f2.8D IF, I will forego the formalities and get straight to the point. You can check out the specifications of these lenses here. Please note that this report is based on the SECOND AF-S 17~35mm f2.8D IF_ED lens.

Some Background Information
My first 17~35mm was probably one of the first batch of lenses produced by Nikon. It had a serial no. 2004XX. My second lens had a serial no. starting with 2019XX. Obviously, Nikon must have produced more than 2,000 pieces of this lens at the time of my writing this review.

17mm
At 17mm f2.8, corners were quite soft but centre sharpness was rated as good. At f5.6, sharpness was very good at centre but corners were still slightly soft. Stopping down to f8 would give very good sharpness across the focal plane. Surprisingly, there was only slight vignetting and distortion at this focal length - definitely a plus point for this lens and the Nikon team. Vignetting was gone by f8.

20mm
At 20mm, no noticeable vignetting was observed on both lenses. Centre sharpness was again rated as good for both lenses. Corners were soft, as to be expected. Unlike the 20~35mm which exhibited slight barrel distortion, the 17~35mm displayed no distortion. Both lenses were equally sharp at centre at f2.8 and f5.6 but the AF-S lens performed better at the corners. Even at f8, the 17~35mm lens was still better at the corners.  

AFS 17-35/F2.8@20MM                                            
   

20-35/F2.8@20MM


24mm
No vignetting or distortion was noticed at this focal length or both lenses. Centre sharpness was good for both lenses at f2.8 although I felt that the 20~35mm had a slight edge over the AF-S lens here. Both lenses benefited with better contrast at f5.6 and f8. Again the 17~35mm lens performed better at the corners than the 20~35mm.

AFS17-35/F2.8@24MM


20-35/F2.8@24MM


28mm
No vignetting or distortion was noticed or both lenses. Strangely, both lenses were slightly soft at the centre and more so at the corners. In other words, both lenses were softer at the centre than at 17mm, 20mm & 24mm. However, the AF-S 17~35mm lens performed better in the corners than at 17mm, 20mm & 24mm. The 20~35mm lens was not as good as the 17~35mm in the corners.

AFS17-35/F2.8@28MM


28MM/F1.4@F2.8, 注意，这可是28/1.4啊！


35mm
Both lenses performed very well at the centre wide open although the 17~35mm seem slightly better. Corner performance was also better than at 17mm, 20mm and 24mm. However, the 20~35mm lens was slightly better than the A-S 17~35mm in the corners at f5.6 and f8.

AFS17-35/F2.8@35MM


20-35/F2.8@35MM


Unfair Comparison?
For the sake of comparison, I deliberately shot several images at 28mm & 35mm with the following lenses :
a) AF-S 28~70mm
b) Tokina ATX Pro II 28~70mm f2.6/2.8
c) AF 28mm f1.4D
At the focal length of 28mm, the sharpest lens at f2.8 was the AF 28mm f1.4D. I did say it was unfair.
At the 35mm focal range, The centre sharpness of the AF-S 28~70 was equivalent to the AF-S 17~35mm and AF 20~35mm. However, the corner performance of the AF-S 28~70mm was slightly weaker than the AF-S 17~35mm at f2.8. Even at f5.6, the AF-S 28~70mm was not as sharp in the corners as the 17~35mm and 20~35mm.

Conclusion
It does seem from this review that the optical performance of the second AF-S 17~35mm lens is better than the first one.

Based on the result of this review, I have to say that Nikon has come up with a winner lens. The lens not only performed well optically but also exhibited very little distortion and vignetting. As mentioned in my first review, a Nikon polarising filter can be used with this lens without much problem. The extra 3mm and the closer focusing capability of the AF-S 17~35mm f2.8D IF-ED lens would certainly attract a lot of attention from professionals as well as serious photographers.

At the time of this writing, the AF-S 17~35mm f2.8D IF-ED lens is selling for about US$1830. Compared to the AF 20~35mm f2.8D IF lens, this may be a little too steep to pay for the extra features. My advice to all is to wait out. Patience is the name of the game here. The price will eventually fall to a more earthly figure.

Since writing the first review, I have received a number of e-mails from people asking me if the AF-S lens is a worthier purchase than the 20~35mm lens. My answer is Yes and No. Yes, if money is not a problem and you need the extra 3mm, a closer and quiet focusing lens. No, if  you  have to steal or mortgage your house to pay for this lens. And definitely a NO if all you desire is to have a "AF-S" lens. If you are expecting a MUCH better lens optically than the already great 20~35mm, you might be disappointed.

But I bet you nobody will heed my advice. So you might as well get the AF-S lens and be done with it  :-)

总体比较下来，AFS17-35/2.8, 20-35/2.8都非常优秀，特别是现在17-35的价格已经比20-35还便宜了！

[xitek 编辑于 2001-10-15 22:39 ]

这是雅虎地球村个人网站，不是啥专业评说，拍的人在新加坡。

这个12-24因为像场太小，所以无法涵盖整个135片幅，用在普通135胶片机上会出现大面积的黑角，还能看到圆形像场圈，类似鱼眼镜头的效果。

哈哈,我很认真你好啊,上17-35不死心呀(莱卡发誓都不玩了,再不上个泥坑顶级头,太委屈自己了),我还是想上一支泥坑定焦顶级超广角.
没有我就等,要不就上个二手20/2.8先玩着,你说哪?

DCFAN老兄谢谢啦.真希望泥坑能出一款,像28/1.4一样的超广角好头

DCFAN谢谢啦,另外泥坑今年新推出的其他3款头什么哪?

呵呵。。。这里又找到一个老外关于AF18/2.8的测评报告，评价也是不高，建议放弃此头改用20/2.8或者17-35/2.8：

http://www_kenrockwell_com/nikon/1828af.htm

Introduction

I was hoping this lens might be a significant step forward in lens performance. I had had such good luck with what appeared to be a lens of similar pedigree, the fantastic 28mm f/1.4D AF, that I was sure the 18mm AF must have to be better than the common 20mm f/2.8 AF designed back in the 1980s. Both the 28/1.4 and 18/2.8 came out around the same time, use an aspherical element (the 28mm has a precision ground element, the 18mm merely a molded one) and seem built to the same high mechanical standard.

Unfortunately the $1,000+ 18mm f/2.8D AF it is no better overall than the $400 20mm f/2.8 AF optically. Oh well. The 18mm does feel like you've bought a premium product, however.

Specifications

It has thirteen elements in ten groups. It has a molded glass aspherical element.

It focusses as close as 0.25m or 10 inches. Oddly, even though it's rear focussing Nikon doesn't list it as having close-range correction.

The 18mm f/2.8D AF takes standard 77mm filters.

It has a seven-bladed diaphragm stopping down to f/22.

It comes in a nice case with an HB-8 hood and is much sturdier then most AF lenses, especially the 20/2.8. It has the same styling as the 28mm F/1.4D AF, 20-35mm f/2.8D AF and 85mm f/1.4D AF, which means a nice metal filter thread and the only plastic to notice is the AF window and the aperture ring.

Performance

Performance is certainly usable, but unfortunately almost identical to my old 20mm f/2.8 AF.

AF speed is very fast. One full turn of the AF screw focusses the lens from infinity to 1.5.' Whew, that's fast!

It is a bit sharper than the 20/2.8 AF wide open, but never gets never perfectly sharp in the corners at any aperture.

It has lots of little ghosts; worse than the 20/2.8 AF. You need to use the obnoxious hood included, unlike with the 20mm AF whose hood you don't need.

It has the typical barrel distortion, and despite all the hoopla about having an aspherical element to eliminate distortion, has the same complex distortion signature as the 20/2.8 AF.

Color balance was a point or two cooler than the 20/2.8, probably not enough to ever notice.

Recommendations

I suggest passing on this lens. There are two better choices.

1.) If you want the same performance for less money, get a 20mm f/2.8 AF instead. The 20/2.8 has better ghost performance and the same sharpness and distortion performance as the far more expensive 18/2.8D AF.

2.) If you want to spend a little more money and get better performance, get the 17-35mm f/2.8D AF-S. I have not directly compared them, however the 17-35mm is better than my 20AF, and therefore is probably much better than the 18mm at its own game. The 17-35mm set to 18mm probably does have more distortion than the 18mm itself, however the 17-35mm has much better sharpness, fewer ghosts and less falloff than the 20mm, and therefore the 18mm as well.

The only reason to get the 18/2.8 AF is if you have a large insurance replacement claim that you need to use or loose, and don't mind the additional ghosts compared to the 20mm. OK, it is more solidly built and does take my preferred 77mm filters. I don't recall checking to see if I could stack more than one 77mm filter on the 18mm without vignetting, as I can with s 62mm->77mm step-up ring on my 20mm.

[DCFAN 编辑于 2003-01-10 21:55]

观注:AF18F2.8D与AF17-35F2.8D的18像质.端.http://cameraunion.com/product/uploadproduct/2/

AF18/2.8评价不高，还有14/2.8那个也是一样。要求成像素质好的，尼康广角定焦头最短焦距买到20/2.8就好了。 我看过沧桑兄给我看的20/2.8与17-35/2.8在同一场合拍的片子，20/2.8明显更鲜艳、清晰，立体感强，充分表现了尼康头的优点。17-35虽说在广角变焦头中也是表表者，但跟20/2.8是没法比的。

怎么没人谈谈N家的18/2.8呀,她和17-35或20-35之间的比较

[grand10 编辑于 2003-01-10 13:56]

认真哥：其实C家手机也不错的，可以考虑NF1+FD24/1。4L 24/2  28/2  35/2
风格特别

徕卡也有别扭的地方：近摄距离较大（0.7m），用广角的时候感觉这种限制更强烈一些。不过徕卡当然好了，挎着徕卡在巴黎转悠，挺美滋滋的吧。不过FM3a + 24/2.8，也挺美滋滋的

IXUS V3建议慎重考虑，随便玩儿可以，想拍点儿东西怕是不行，光圈太小，ISO200将就，400已经不太能接受了。还有就是时滞，不方便抓东西。像LC5，2.0的光圈大了一档呢，就是大点儿

别呀，何苦呢？C家可没手动机哟，AF影响拍片呀。

就守着N家吧，高兴了上个FM3a，像28/1.4手动对焦手感很好，喜欢怎么玩儿就怎么玩儿。依着大龙的习性，其实有了这支头，没太大必要上徕卡了（除非喜欢旁轴操作单说），再加上已经有的24/2.8，50/1.4，已经齐了。这28/1.4用起来可比50/1还快，街头扫射通杀

建议考虑先别在数码上扔钱了，我找的比你还勤快，目前小玩意儿里没个像样的，再等等。

24/28/50，多好的焦段组合，那个什么国的大街小巷就等这28/1.4了

到这里看看吧，后面一个有G2对28/1.4和24/1.4的评价：
http://www.xitek.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=48758
http://www_chyangwa_com/magazine/show.php?id=137

这可不是放毒哟

绝对赞同3d和大龙！

大龙要不你狠心弄一个吧，好使，尼康里的徕卡，这样一来连M7都省了

[我很认真 编辑于 2003-01-08 23:15]

17-35长处的地方一是17二是最近对焦距离三是AFS，20-35的特色是精细研磨的镜片。
新品价格没太大差距。