DSLRUsers.com

This problem has kept me busy for the last couple of months. I've read all the reviews, forum discussions etc out there, but still can't decide.

I'd love to hear from fellow forum members that had to make this very decision.

This being a major investment for me (both lenses are around the $2000 mark) I want to get it right. I can't afford to buy both and sell the one I like less. The shops I've tried didn't have them for hands-on play, but I might have missed the good ones since I don't get out much

I'm leaning towards the 17-35. While I personally don't think that Nikon will ever bring out a 35mm format sensor but rather invest in R&D to make DX sensors just as noise-free (or better) I'd hate to find out I've gambled wrong in a few months time.

Any input greatly appreciated.

Cheers
Steffen.

steffan
i borrowed a 17-55 from fozzie to do a wedding in adelaide and was wrapt in the lens and was going to order one from birdy.. but on the advice from fozzie ( 17-55 was dx ) decided to buy the 28-70 2.8 just in case nikon brought out a ff sensor, i am wrapt in the clarity of "the beast" and thank fozzie for recommending it, and seeing some of wendell's model shots with this lens left me in no doubt that i made a good decision

cheers rob

always hear great things about the 17-35 f2.8
it has the closes minimum focus distance out of

28-70 and 17-55

very handy for getting extreme differential focus on closeby foreground subjects at f2.8

it's built better too and i have seen many press photographers use it over the 17-55 and 28-70

Steffen, I have borrowed the 17-35 and was very much impressed with it. Shadow details was excellent, sharpness through the whole range etc.

Personally I think this lens although a zoom is in the same class as fixed primes.

The 17 - 35 can still be used on Film cameras - if you still have one.

IMHO, the DX sensor is someone else's sensor and that someone else will be doing the forward R&D and applying to their own products.

Steffen I'll be getting a 17-35 when I get a bit more money together. I have the 80-200 2.8, 28-70 2.8 (on order from Birdy) and the next one in the series will be the 17-35 2.8 for all the sorts of reasons mentioned above already. I'm prepared to keep using my 18-70 dx kit lens till I have the 17-35 in my hot little hands.

Cheers
John

Ivanerrol wrote:IMHO, the DX sensor is someone else's sensor and that someone else will be doing the forward R&D and applying to their own products.

Not sure what you mean? I used "DX" as a designation of format, not maker. However, didn't Nikon develop the D2H's sensor themselves?

Cheers
Steffen.

I've used both 17-35 and 17-55 borrowed for a short while.

The 17-35 did a good job on my D70, the zoom range put on a DX sensor is bit short on its hand, but handling wise, it felt like a rock. AF is 'okay', not that lightling fast from what I remembered. Quality is very good to excellent, depending on the focal length and aperture. It works well wide open, but much better stopped down.

Putting the 17-35 on my F80, the view was totally different. A true ultra-wide as it was designed for! Sharpness on slide film is just unbelievable, I'd say it looks much sharper on film than was on the digital for me.


I only used the 17-55 for a few hrs, but then its a very impressive lens. Sharpness at wide open is really good, AF was (maybe) faster than the 17-35 (I cant confirm since I used them both several months apart). The feel is great but I miss the metal crinckle finish on the 17-35. I cant say much about its optical performance from my short time experience with it, but I guess if you're not going back to film or FF anywhere near, then this can be your choice.

Steffen,
I went through the same agony . I ended up with the 17-35 + 28-70 combo. I am very happy with both of them. Would I have been happy with the 17-55?
At the time there also were focussing and quality issues with the 17-55. Yi-P says the auto focus on the 17-35 is "OK". I do not know where he got this impression, it is just unnoticeable, you are just about always in focus...

Steffen

I thought long and hard in a similar vein a month or so back. I decided against the 17-55 and went for the 28-70 since I intended to use it as my walk around lens. Couple that with a 12-24 for the wide end and a tele zoom (70-200VR in my case) and you're done.

From my playing (and I looked at the 17-35 too) all are quality glass. IMHO though 17-35 is just too narrow a range for a zoom on a DX sensor

Thanks all for your input so far, and for "guiding" my thoughts...

A few people mentioned that the zoom range of the 17-35 is too small for a DX body. What does that mean? Being translated to a 25.5-52.5, it is still a 2x zoom, and the absolute zoom range has actually increased from 18 to 27mm...

Also, has anyone ever gotten the chance to try the 17-55 hood on the 17-35? I believe the longer hood should be used on the 17-35 when using a DX body, and shouldn't cause vignetting at 17mm.

On the other hand, the 17-35 apears to be one of the most flare and glare resistant zooms, so maybe it doesn't matter. Sadly, the opposite is true for the 17-55, that's one of the main reasons I'm wavering...

Cheers
Steffen.

I ended up with a 17-35 even tho I was sorta leaning towards the '55DX, purely because I stumbled upon the former at a bargain price (albeit with a busted AF-S motor).

To be honest, the 17-35 doesn't really make sense on a digital - as IMO I see the 12-24 as being made to do on DX what the 17-35 was designed for on film. ie. wide angle zoom. So really, the 17-35 is a gamble on Nikon going FF (which personally, I don't see EVER happening in this age of shrinking electronics and everything downsizing) while the 17-55DX is a gamble on the continuation of the DX format. While the '35 can be used on digital, I don't feel it's optimally suited as the 55DX is.

The 17-35 is best stopped down (it's no better optically than the 18-70 kit lens when both are used wide open) while the 17-55DX is sharp and contrasty even near wide open - and for my purposes of a 18-70 replacement, the '55DX should have been my choice.

Don`t know for sure and have never tried one myself, however this review seems to say the 17-55 is way over-rated and over-priced.
see here http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1755.htm

I have the 17-35 and I think is superb! (In my opinion, 17-35, 70-200VR and 300 2.8 Vr are the best lenses on the market)
You can use on both digital and film ( as I do), on digital is fantastic on film is unbelievable.
The 17-35 is my walk around lense and if you think you're missing the 55mm take a 50mm 1.8 (cheep as cheps), or even better the 50 1.4 and you will be cpmplete

If you want save money and have same, better say similar, feeling of 17-55 try the new Tamron 17-50 cheeper than Nikon but good enough to take great pics
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/tamron_1750_28/index.htm

I have the 17-55 DX and think it is spectacularly sharp. It focusses really quickly too.
I tossed up between this lens and the 28-70, which has an awesome reputation but is fairly big on a D70.

There have been some adverse comments about the build quality of the 17-55 DX, but I do not have any complaints about it.

For family shots, usually taken inside or outside at close range, I think it is a better bet than the 28-70.

It is now my main walk around lens.

I do not think there is much difference in size between the 28-70 and the 17-55, you would not notice the difference once on the camera. Te 17-35 is much smaller. I do not think you can compare the 12-24 to the 17-35 as far as picture quality is concerned, I take it from an experienced person who tested both in difficult lighting conditions. The shadow details are much more preserved with the 17-35.

Of course, the 28-70 is better than 17-35 but are two differt lenses, different size, weight, use......

Have a look here
http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html

here
http://www.bythom.com/1735lens.htm

and here
http://www.bythom.com/1755lens.htm

Or have a look here http://home.zonnet.nl/famwakker/nikonlinkslensesreviewnikonlenses01.htm and you will be complete!

Thanks Jeko, and everyone who took the time to reply.

I believe I can recite all these reviews by heart, but somehow there is always something missing in reviews, something you only get from talking to people who've used the items in question... Maybe reviewers have to tilt the scale towards politcal correctness, or simply towards what earns their bread.

Btw, I'm not at all interested in the 28-70, I'm trying to decide between the 17-35 and the 17-55. I was leaning towards the 17-35 and this thread so far seems to foster this preference.

The added extension doesn't really excite me (who needs a 55mm f/2.8?), so the battle ground is purely ergonomics and important optical characteristics. I'm not too fussed about an iota of difference between resolution at certain f-stops, since both lenses will likely out-perform my own technique. However, flare resistance is an important point for me, for example.

Cheers
Steffen.

From my experience, flare resistance of the 17-35 is not as good as some have claimed.

In my brain-off mode, not thinking about basic lighting principles and just wanting snapshots of my work colleague's cars, I've managed to capture duds where images were stuffed because that darn big curved front element that's needed of a fast wide-angle lens got in too much unwanted light (plus I was an idiot for pointing it towards the sun, and without the use of a lens hood, etc). eg:


But TBH it behaves as it's expected to, and most of the time it's a great lens. Staples of Reznick, Hogan, Peterson, et al. and they ain't got no bad things to say about it. And that's gotta be an endorsement of the highest order!

Steffen wrote:The added extension doesn't really excite me (who needs a 55mm f/2.8?) ...
Cheers
Steffen.

I always think about versatility.
55mm on a Nikon DSLR is the equivalent of around 85mm prime lens on a film camera. In other words, right on the money for portraits, at quite a fast aperture of F2.8.

The 28-70 wouldn't be ideal if you're in a small room esp if you needed the wider angle. With a 17-35, if you're going to take portrait or social shots and you need the length, take the 2 or 3 steps to close the gap. Unless you're near water

Onyx wrote:In my brain-off mode, not thinking about basic lighting principles and just wanting snapshots of my work colleague's cars, I've managed to capture duds where images were stuffed because that darn big curved front element that's needed of a fast wide-angle lens got in too much unwanted light (plus I was an idiot for pointing it towards the sun, and without the use of a lens hood, etc). eg:

Crikey! How far away from the frame edge was the sun? Yes, I know, about 150 million km, I mean in degrees, roughly... Also, did you have a filter on the lens? What focal length was the shot taken at? Do you have any shots with the sun inside the frame?

Cheers
Steffen.

.......and without the use of a lens hood, etc.....

All lenses are studied and developed to be used with Lens Hood. To test a lens the hood is a must.
Don't forget lens hood is a fundamental part of the lens such as the glass!

IE: the 70-200VR is a amazing lens...... weak side: flare (and price!)
So if used without the hood could be a

I have the 17-35 and the 28-70 , and considering their size and weight, ide love to have the 17-55 = saves time swapping, weight to carry and danger of damage... not to mntion the expense of needing 2 lenses to the job of one.

What do you want the lens for ?
if the split sec timing of a photojournalist is needed, a single lens is best . 17- 55mm x matrix factor = the most usable range for said application.
imao

hello, I am going through similar thoughts. I like the comment above which says buy the 17-35, and take the steps to get lenght.

Most of my application will be walk around, and portraiture/wedding/parties candids.

I'm thinking of selling a few lenses, to fund a 17-55 or 17-35. I see that my new purchase would cover my current use of 50/1.8, 85/1.8, and 17-80/kit. That leaves me with my 80-200/2.8, with a view to get the 12-24 later. reduces my lens count, speed is ok for my needs, as I prefer 5.6-11 range, and reduces lens change over during shoots.

I read that the sharpness and color is "better" in the 17-35 (and understanding the physics, the lower focal range typlically transcribes to improved sharpness throughout).

I'm leaning towards the 17-35, as I would hate to spend same on 17-55 and get soft edges of folcal length, and regret it...

I guess I can sell my lenses over ebay, or in here, which may cover half of the new purchase.

Still, would like to quatify the cons of the 17-55, as I owuld like to use the length for candids.

good luck in the images, regardless of your decision.

anyone have tips on where to get 17-55 in melbourne, with warantee?

thanks
Oz

Hi, I can only comment on the 17-35 as I have never used the longer lens.

My views, in summary are:

1. Quality and operation has been explained at length and in other reviews.
2. I have this lens constantly attached to the camera.
3. Generally, if I want a longer shot, I either use my 50 mm or, if time is against me, which it often isn't, I use 35 mm and then crop.
4. I can easily use this lens on my f90x as well.

I am a big fan of this lens, particularly after seeing a similar lens sell on ebay recently at 60% more than what I paid for it!

Cheers

P

Oz_Beachside wrote:hello, I am going through similar thoughts. I like the comment above which says buy the 17-35, and take the steps to get lenght.

Most of my application will be walk around, and portraiture/wedding/parties candids.

Oz

"If your pictures aren't good enough, you're not close enough."
Robert Capra

Does anyone know if Nikon will be producing a full 35mm sensor camera rather than the APS sensor size camera? Shouldn't that influence these lenses?