DSLRUsers.com

Ok

I'm stuck making the desicion between 2 lenses, the nikkor 17-35 2.8 and the 17-55 2.8

I've read a tonne of reviews but I just cant seem to decide which lens would be better suited to me, so I bring the question with who ever has had any experience with any of these lenses to give me a hand with deciding.

any pros/cons you've experience with either lens etc.

A little back ground, I shoot wide more often then not and will be shooting 2.8 more often then then not as well, that may or may not help.

any help is appreciated

Michael

17-35 is the only way.

Michael,
I opted for the 17-35 as I already have the 28-70. That was part of the plan in case Nikon came up with a FF sensor. When I get that in the bag + the 70-200 and the rest of the gear, it is heavy and that is something you might take into consideration . I think it is more a matter of the set up you'd like rather than the quality of the lenses, and no matter what, there will always be times when you wish you had gone the other way. I am very happy with the lenses I have and do not look back.

I've debated the same thing, but don't have enough funds to make good on my decision... yet

17-35. Why? It's not DX which leaves future/film options open and there seems to be less noted sample variation compared to the 17-55. If I need ~50mm @ 2.8, the 50/1.4 @ 2.8 is probably a touch in front for sharpness.

I've used Birddog's 17-35 and it's pretty impressive.

My ideal line up is
10.5FE, 12-24/4, 17-35/2.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.4, 105/2 DC, 80-400VR

(the problem is I only have 2 out of the above )

That's my rant on the subject anyway

I have a 50 1.8 I could always use for that extra length, I guess I just needed to be pushed in a direction.

I'm leaning more towards a 17-35 birddog what is this lens like widest focal length and at 2.8?

Michael wrote: birddog what is this lens like widest focal length and at 2.8?

I like it very much, and it's the only zoom lens permanent stay on one of my camera bodies, otherwise I have prime instead of.

It's not superwide but it serves with all my shooting styles.

Hmm thanks for the insight fellas, I think I might go the 17-35 that way if anything FF ever does come my way I can use this lens.

birddog114 wrote:17-35 is the only way.

That's the one I need for the birthday! Need to check this glass out on some landscape shoot

LostDingo wrote:

birddog114 wrote:17-35 is the only way.

That's the one I need for the birthday! Need to check this glass out on some landscape shoot

LostDingo,
I thought you asked one of the 300 VR on another thread?

17-35 is the only way..

I like it very much, and it's the only zoom lens permanent stay on one of my camera bodies, otherwise I have prime instead of.

It's not superwide but it serves with all my shooting styles.

I completely agree!

daniel_r wrote:I've debated the same thing, but don't have enough funds to make good on my decision... yet

17-35. Why? It's not DX which leaves future/film options open and there seems to be less noted sample variation compared to the 17-55. If I need ~50mm @ 2.8, the 50/1.4 @ 2.8 is probably a touch in front for sharpness.

I've used Birddog's 17-35 and it's pretty impressive.

My ideal line up is
10.5FE, 12-24/4, 17-35/2.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.4, 105/2 DC, 80-400VR

(the problem is I only have 2 out of the above )

That's my rant on the subject anyway

Since picking up with photography again after a long rest, and commencing with the D70 I sort to replicate my old 35mm set up in new a grade Nikkor glass. Only this time I treated the exercise with alot more patience and much more research.

I for one have debated the 12-24 vs 17-35 options for at least 14months, and consider that forking out the big bucks for DX glass which might become a dinasour when/if Nikon launches a full format line would be very annoying.

Then again you have to live in the present.
You can observe the debate between these two lenses across every Nikon forum on the nett - it has been done to death.
Both seem good for their owners.
The 17-35 is considered by many to be one of the best ever Nikkor zoom lenses, with exceptional qualities into the sun. But is 17mm x 1.5 wide enough - it probably is for me.
I've also read that the the D200 may be the perfect match with the 12-24.

Isn't it tough when you can only afford one or the other?!?

It is indeed tough, I thought about the 12-24 but its f4 and Im trying to keep all my lenses no slower then 2.8 because of the conditions I shoot in a majority of the time.

Michael

I have the 17-55 and for me it was a better option, as for the simple fact
that it covers a wider focal range.
And IMHO there is very little difference in quality between the two, BOTH are superb lenses.

Here's one from the 17-55 from a recent wedding

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/95535941@N00/140294403/" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://static.flickr.com/54/140294403_2d16fd887d.jpg" width="331" height="500" alt="Beautiful Bride" /></a>

Definately the 17 -35 is a fantastic lens.

Image taken with AFS 17-35



Bob G

Awesome, thanks for the pics guys!

There's not much difference in the lens in quality and max wide, in digital.

The 17-35 can go to closest (minimum distance) than the 17-55.
The 17-35 can use on both FF and Digital but 17-55 is not.
The 17-35 didn't have any QA problems, but the 17-55 has lot of mixed reports in difference body, as work OK on D70 but stuffed on D200 or D2.

birddog114 wrote:

LostDingo wrote:

birddog114 wrote:17-35 is the only way.

That's the one I need for the birthday! Need to check this glass out on some landscape shoot

LostDingo,
I thought you asked one of the 300 VR on another thread?

No no, it was a 300 manual, that is everyday item 17-35 is wishlist

I find that my 17-55mm is as sharp as my 28mm f1.4 at f2.8.

http://www.d70users.com/viewtopic.php?t=16011

But I don't use it as much as I should.

padey that 28 1.4 is one sexy lens I've had my eyes on for a long time for concert photography.

but I cant afford that just yet.

What a timely thread Michael. I'm going through the same debate myself. Here's Bjorn Rorslett's take on the 17-35 if you haven't seen it and just below that the 17-55. I'm inclined towards the 17-35 myself, but worried about the reach (I have wide covered with the 12-24)

EDIT: Having done some more research I'm also considering the 28-70 ED-IF/2.8. Bjorn rates it highly and it gets good user reviews, but it's marked down by some reviewers because it weighs 890gm!

stubbsy wrote:What a timely thread Michael. I'm going through the same debate myself. Here's Bjorn Rorslett's take on the 17-35 if you haven't seen it and just below that the 17-55. I'm inclined towards the 17-35 myself, but worried about the reach (I have wide covered with the 12-24)

Peter,
What I have and they are overlapped:
12-24/ 17-35/ 28-70/ 70-200
But at the end of he day, they're all superb.
If you go
12-24/ 17-55/70-200,
There's also a gap between 55 -70.

Thanks for the link stubbsy good read, I guess I'll go with the 17-35.

I just sent my 70-200 sigma away for rechipping so now Im without my workhorse journalism (newspaper) lens which I am at the moment extremely depressed about!

To top that I've just quit drinking (apart from special occaisions) so hopefully buying a very nice lens will perk me up a little, I don't know what im going to do without my 70-200 though?

I know the quitting drinking doesn't really have much to do with anything in this thread but normally, I'd just drown my sorrys in some amber liquid and I needed to rant.

*cries*

Birdy - any comments on the 28-70 ED-IF/2.8?

stubbsy wrote:Birdy - any comments on the 28-70 ED-IF/2.8?

What comment?
Wendell has one.
Glamy has one
Spada has one
HB has one
BoBG has one
Anyone else on this board has it??????
And I have one also.

Love to have it and not part with it.

More food for thought then, but 900 gm lens + 1000 gm D2x = heavy

stubbsy wrote:More food for thought then, but 900 gm lens + 1000 gm D2x = heavy

Ah but the weight is offset by your now empty wallet!

stubbsy wrote:More food for thought then, but 900 gm lens + 1000 gm D2x = heavy

Hey Peter,
Not that heavy as you thought! same as you weighted in between the D200 and the D2x.

The D200 + battery grip + 2 batteries is quite near the gross weight of the D2x.

stubbsy wrote:More food for thought then, but 900 gm lens + 1000 gm D2x = heavy

Peter I got to use Wendell's D2x, the 28-70 and also the famous looks good L-plate and it didn't feel to heavy I'd just been shooting with the D70+80-200+homemade L-plate and I felt comfortable with either.

..and I complain when I have to use the D70s, RRS L-Plate and Tokina 12-24

Maybe I should invest in a gym membership before even starting to consider a D2X with a 28-70 or 70-200VR!

The D200 + 70-200 sigma + sb800 is enough to give me a bit of a sore neck after a while.

fairly solid package.

Let's face it, if you want quality fast glass in a zoom, there's going to be a lot of it and it's going to be heavy. None of these lenses (17-35, 17-55, 28-70) is lightweight, and they are all of sensational quality.

I can't fault my 17-55 DX: it's sharp as, even at f/2.8. I can live with a gap between 55 and 70 mm, why would one own a set of primes if we worried about such things? My goodness there's a gap between 28 and 35, 35 and 50, 50 and 85... IMO the focal range of the 17-55 DX is more useful, as you can switch from groups to portraits without changing lenses. If you had two bodies a 17-35 on one and the 28-70 on the other would be a sweet setup, but if you want the 17-35 and the 28-70 you're talking serious money too.

MCWB wrote:Let's face it, if you want quality fast glass in a zoom, there's going to be a lot of it and it's going to be heavy. None of these lenses (17-35, 17-55, 28-70) is lightweight, and they are all of sensational quality.

I can't fault my 17-55 DX: it's sharp as, even at f/2.8. I can live with a gap between 55 and 70 mm, why would one own a set of primes if we worried about such things? My goodness there's a gap between 28 and 35, 35 and 50, 50 and 85... IMO the focal range of the 17-55 DX is more useful, as you can switch from groups to portraits without changing lenses. If you had two bodies a 17-35 on one and the 28-70 on the other would be a sweet setup, but if you want the 17-35 and the 28-70 you're talking serious money too.

MCWB,
If people can afford the D2x (both finacially and size) then no question ask Yes, size does matter isn't it?

Like the people who drive the X5 4.0L petrol or any car with V8 engine, I never heard them complaining about the price of the fuel, the complaints are only coming out from the guy who's driving a Camry or a Toyota Startlet or an Echo

I'm pretty much in agreement with you Trent (and Birdy I'm getting poorer by the second), but I'm inclined to think 12-24 + 28-70 + 70-200 is the go (and maybe say goodbye to the 24-120 VR - LOZ no comments please )

If you get the 28-70 on your D2X, as Heath says, no one will come up to you and say I have one of those Except Wendell, Birddy, etc. Nice choices Stubbsy, it is hard to choose in that range.

True Birdy, fair enough point!

stubbsy wrote:12-24 + 28-70 + 70-200 is the go

Sounds pretty nice. Only problem then is that you can only shoot wider than 28 mm with the 12-24, which isn't f/2.8...

Just get them all.

Peter,
I am very happy with my 28-70 and from past experiece it is only going to get better on the D2X . It may sound cheap, but some members are very happy with the Tamron 28-75 (Birddog has one...). It is lighter than the Nikon and very sharp at f/2.8. I'll keep a WA on the D70 and the 28-70 or 70-200 on the D2X, although I am keen to test the 17-35 on that one . I am now looking for a good gym .
Cheers,
Gerard

Bob G wrote:Definately the 17 -35 is a fantastic lens.

Image taken with AFS 17-35

See previously submitted image on Page 1

Bob G

You must have an opinion on this Bob.
I commented on your seascape elsewhere, and note that while the 17-35 has worked for you - IT IS FOR SALE.
Does this mean you prefer the 12-24 from experience ?

Suri,

I prefer the quality of the 17 - 35 over the 12-24 but I need the wider angle of the 12-24

I have been reorganising my kit of zooms as follows:-

Originally had 17-35/ 28-70/ 80 to 200 from film days (Had a Nikon F100)

I found that I needed wider angle after going digital with a D70 and acquired the 12-24 .

Later on after ugrading to a D2x I sold my 80-200 to acquire the 70-200 because of the VR and the sensitivity of the D2x to any camera movement.

Recently acquired 85mm 1.4 fixed lens and am selling the 17-35 to fund that purchase and because it is a luxury considering it seriously overlaps the ranges of the 12-24 and the 28-70

Hope that explains reason for selling it

Bob G

Echoing from BOb G,
I like them all,
12-24 does a difference job.
17-35 has a difference task
28-70 Candid and PJ style.
70-200 Extra lenght for/ when you need.
85/1.4 Portrait shoot.

!7-35 is the lens on my camera body, again i have a difference style of shooting or my liking from other.

Part of the 17-35, I shoot primes almost and they are in my vest, zooms stay in my bag and behind the counter, only pull them out when I require.

That's it precisely Birddog!!

They are all extremely high quality lenses with the 12 - 24 IMHO being slightly below the others but yet still high quality



Bob G

Michael wrote:any pros/cons you've experience with either lens etc.

Joining in about a week late... sorry, I've been elsewhere...

On top of the things mentioned by everyone else, the 17-35 has one advantage over the 17-55 that was an absolute deal-maker for me:

The 17-35 has an aperture ring.

With the right camera (D200, D2X, others?) this means you can go from f22 to f2.8, turn the camera on and lift it to your eye in about 0.2 seconds. Try doing that by turning a command dial and you miss the shot.

It's rare that I need that kind of response time - but it *has* given me the occasional keeper.

Otherwise my reasons for buying the 17-35 were: it fits in beautifully with my venerable 35-70 f2.8; I found one second-hand in pristine condition; plus everything else mentioned by the others.

Both lenses are superb. For me the 17-35 is superber.

HTH

Keith

stubbsy wrote:More food for thought then, but 900 gm lens + 1000 gm D2x = heavy

stubbsy

28-70 + d2x = bloody heavy !!! but superb quality

cheers rob

robw25 wrote:

stubbsy wrote:More food for thought then, but 900 gm lens + 1000 gm D2x = heavy

stubbsy

28-70 + d2x = bloody heavy !!! but superb quality

cheers rob

Maybe I need to take up weightlifting

birddog114 wrote:The 17-35 didn't have any QA problems, but the 17-55 has lot of mixed reports in difference body, as work OK on D70 but stuffed on D200 or D2.

Does anyone know whether these quality problems with the 17-55 have been overcome with the D200?
Is there a link I haven't found by searching?

Adam.

Don't we all go through this...

We have been contemplating 12-24 or 17-?? 35 or 55...
Thinking about 12-24 as we already have 17-55 range in 2 other lenses but not as good glass or as bright - not f2.8

I have had a look at the Nikon 12-24 and other brand lenses (Can't remember Tokina or Tamron or both)
The biggest thing that impresses me about the Nikon 12-24 is no barrel distortion (fisheye effect) at all, at least not detectable thru the D70 or on its display.
When a shop handed me a Canon camera with a (T) lens of similar focal length, it was significantly distorting the image (fisheye).

Why am I here?
Wife has lens lust... Tripod, 12-24, 50 f1.4, SB800 all soon to get.
Also, thought I would share what I found by looking at the 12-24 and see whether others agree.

EDIT 19-9-06 - we now have the Nikon 12-24, 50 f1.4, and a Benro M-128n6 plus KB-1 ball head.

daniel_r wrote:I've debated the same thing, but don't have enough funds to make good on my decision... yet

17-35. Why? It's not DX which leaves future/film options open and there seems to be less noted sample variation compared to the 17-55. If I need ~50mm @ 2.8, the 50/1.4 @ 2.8 is probably a touch in front for sharpness.

I've used Birddog's 17-35 and it's pretty impressive.

My ideal line up is
10.5FE, 12-24/4, 17-35/2.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.4, 105/2 DC, 80-400VR

Sorry to butt in, but I have a couple of questions:

- why would you want a 17-35 as well as the 12-24? Wouldn't the 12-24 suffice?
- is there any downside to the "non DX" characteristic of the mentioned 17-35?

the 17-35 is a stunning lens...one oft overlooked charecteristic of this lens is the short min focus distance....
you could wade into a journalistic scrum hold this over the others and shoot away...