Nikon 17-28mm f/2.8 Lens Review
Nikon 17-28mm f/2.8 Lens Review
By Sam Bugas - April 2024
The Nikon 17-28mm f/2.8 is the latest addition to my main photography kit, and it took some time to convince myself to take the jump. As an adventure focused photographer, 14-24mm and 16-35mm lenses are often considered the most practical focal lengths. However, my hesitation was rooted in two concerns. First, I tend to see things from long focal length perspectives such as 24-120mm or 70-200mm. Second, this lens doesn’t have even close to the width of the 14-24mm, and it’s lacking a lot of the range of the 16-35mm. So after quite a few months using it in all sorts of different environments, what is my verdict? I’ll use this blog to answer that question, and to evaluate the variables I consider most important.
Why Choose the 17-28mm f/2.8?
The short answer is usability. If you find yourself disliking the experience of using a lens, you’ll naturally tend not to use it, and I consider that a bad investment. Fortunately, this is one of the shining aspects of the 17-28mm. At first glance, the 17-28mm looks about as small as most f/1.8 lenses in the Nikon line such as the 35mm and 50mm. That’s to say, it’s really dang small, and therefore very easy to keep on the camera or in the bag.
In addition, the 17-28mm has a max aperture of f/2.8, which is not something you find in most mid-market wide zoom lenses, and especially not in such a small form factor. If you are choosing the 17-28mm f/2.8, it is because you can’t live with an f/4 option like the 14-30mm, and possibly because you can’t live with the size and weight of the larger 14-24 and 16-35mm options.
Lastly, while the range of 17-28mm can be seen as a weekness, it is also objectively more versatile than a prime lens, and far more usable than a bag of primes to cover the same range (18mm, 20mm, 24mm, 28mm). So to summarize, you choose the 17-28mm because it is small, it is versatile, and it is bright.
Emily gazing out at the black sand horizon of Iceland while nestled in a small ice cave on Mt. Katla.
Standing a couple thousand feet above the water, I look out at the mythical Faroe Islands from Traelanipa, with only my headlamp to guide me down the steep trail after dusk
f/2.8 or f/4?
Often the biggest question while shopping for a wide angle zoom lens is whether or not you would benefit from the advantages that a wider f/2.8 aperture gives you. In many cases, such as landscape photography, you may be stepping the lens down past f/4 for most shots anyway, and this would negate the benefit of having an f/2.8. In this case, the tiny, and supposedly great 14-30mm is probably the ideal option for almost everyone.
The story changes if you shoot predominantly in golden hour or blue hour (just before sunrise and just after sunset). If this is the case, you are already operating on lower light, and the f/2.8 begins to show its worth. Next, you have to consider if you are shooting handheld more often or on a tripod. If on a tripod, you can often use a slower shutter speed to bring in more light. If you are handheld most of the time, like me, then the f/2.8 may be the difference of a 1/50 shutter vs a 1/20, which in many environments can make or break the resulting photo (go ahead and bash me in the comments if you think I should be able to handhold slower).
Lastly, do you have an interest in astro photography? If so, f/2.8 is a borderline must. I absolutely recognize some people make f/4 work, but in my experience, f/2.8 is closer to the minimum I need, and I would usually prefer even brighter. I love setting up for the milky way while backpacking, aurora while travelling, and any other late night spectacle, so f/2.8 is a must.
Build Quality
The 17-28mm is not a beautiful lens, nor is it made out of metal like 70 year old vintage glass. Instead, it is built to be forgotten, and I mean this as a compliment. Nikon’s use of plastic for most of their lenses makes some photographers uncomfortable, but I can say after having dropped, kicked, soaked, and had several birds poop on it, the 17-28mm will last, it won’t show it’s age, and it can be trusted. It’s weather sealed well enough to survive rain, snow, wind, desert sand, ocean salt, and anything else; I know because I have pushed it in each of these environments. The minimal controls (zoom and focus rings) are tight, responsive, well dampened, and nice to use with bare hands or puffy gloves. There are no buttons or switches to speak of (so nothing for sand to ruin), and best of all, the whole zoom is internal, so the small beast stays small no matter how you use it, and it doesn’t suck in dust and water as you zoom.
Image Quality/Performance
This is my least favorite thing to write about because I think it means virtually nothing to most shooters. The 60 year old dusty vintage lens in your grandpa’s closet still takes photos that are as sharp as a tack, and we put way too much into this. That said, the 17-28mm is as good as any lens I own or have ever used. It is sharp from the center to the corners all through the zoom range, especially after f/4. It has really manageable distortion that I actually leave in my images because it adds nice character. It has minimal chromatic aberration, only showing in really harsh environments. It performs very well when pointed at the stars or aurora, handling the contrast and corner abberation patterns (that all lenses have) very well. Lastly, it handles sun flares well and for those that care, yes, you can make a sun star.
Autofocus
I can keep this very short and very sweet. It works, and it works beautifully. On the camera I use, the Nikon Z8, I have yet to use a lens that performs poorly, and the 17-28mm is no exception. It tracks subjects well, although it’s rarely all that necessary with a wide lens. When I am close to people shooting while climbing or hiking, it has no problem hitting focus. I pretty much never think about whether autofocus is working anymore because it always is.
Verdict (4.5 out of 5 stars)
The 17-28mm f/2.8 is a simple lens in many ways. At first glance, it seems like a direct competitor to the 14-24mm and 16-35mm line of lenses. However, after using it, the 17-28mm is distinctly something of its own, and something very much worth owning. It is small, light, reliably built, weather sealed, sharp as a tac, and has just enough zoom range to be practical anywhere from astro to photojournalism. The only perceivable fault is that I’d like to be able to shoot it a bit wider (15mm would be great), but if it did that, it would likely be similar in size to the much larger 14-24mm, and therefor I would leave it at home more often. The 17-28mm strikes a sweet spot, and I’m surprised at how much fun it is to use after spending several seasons pushing its comfort zone. I’ve been told it is not much of a seller to this point, and many companies aren’t even aware that it exists. I expect that as time goes on, more and more people will realize the benefits of a small, wide, affordable, f/2.8 zoom.
About Me:
I have shot photos for five years, with a consistent focus on capturing moments of action and environment while I am outside. I’ve dabbled in quite a few different genres of photography, and I’ve found that my favorite moments to take a photo are when the wind is whipping, the air is freezing, and I’m far away from home. Over the last year, I’ve come to the realization that taking photos and telling stories are two very different things. My goal is to keep improving as a story teller that can work in the worst environments and come away with compelling sets of photos and written stories that help me, and others, to relive the essence of an adventure. I am focused on continuing to grow as a visual story teller so that I may leverage my skills to successfully work within conservation, expedition photography, and commercial photography.
Lastly, if you are a climber, backpacker, photographer, scuba diver or whatever else on the South Island of New Zealand, let’s get in touch! I just arrived in Christchurch, and I am taking every opportunity available to go out and explore this wonderful new place.