DSLRUsers.com

Hi all,
I am thinking of getting a dx 17-55 2.8 but have heard i might be disapionted in the performance of this $2k plus lense, so i am now thinking of a 17-35 2.8 and a 35-70 2.8 instead.
Any thoughts on the best option?

17-35 with a freakin Yahoo!

minimum focus distance under 5cm
sharp
and funky at 17mm

The Tamron 17-50 2.8 is a very nice lens.

wendellt wrote:minimum focus distance under 5cm

no way lol!
i was so astonished that i checked hehe

0.28m according to ken rockwell

im pondering about this lens.. its either this one or the somewhat cheaper 12-24 which i'll probably opt for.

-j

seeto.centric wrote:

wendellt wrote:minimum focus distance under 5cm

no way lol!
i was so astonished that i checked hehe

0.28m according to ken rockwell

I think Ken and Wendell are talking about different things 28cm from the focal plane, minus ~12cm for the length of the lens, minus 3-4 cm for the distance between mount and focal plane, minus a few more cm for the lens hood = about 5cm!

crap
i never knew i was that good at math

i just know with this lens i can get so close to a models face the lens fogs up

it's the best all round lens

17-35 BAY A WIDE MARGIN....and i had both....the 17-55 was C R A P!

sounds like the 17-55 is not the one to get, is the 35-70 2.8 as good as the 17-35?

Thunder wrote:sounds like the 17-55 is not the one to get, is the 35-70 2.8 as good as the 17-35?

I have never played with the [cough] [splutter] DX 17-55 but have the 17-35 and, whilst mine has some focusing problems, it is a very sweet lens. I actually very much missed it when it was in the 'shop' earlier this year.

after reading of a number of forums (i too was considering a 17-55 many moons ago),

i came to the conclusion that

45% of people love their 17-55
45% of people whinged about it
10% of people use tamron 17-50s and have pretty good experiences with them.

it seriously is like that - half of the 17-55 users like them, half dont. and then there is a group of users who have the tammy 17-50 f2.8 and reckon its great too....

i don't really know what conclusions to make from everything, perhaps just go into a store with your camera, ask if you can try the 17-55 out and try the 17-35 out, go home, have a look at the images, and see what is more acceptable to you...

Thunder wrote:sounds like the 17-55 is not the one to get, is the 35-70 2.8 as good as the 17-35?

There are plenty of people here (including myself) who have the 17-55 and are very happy with it. It does seem as if there is some varying quality with it though, so I'd only buy it through somewhere I could return it (or where I could test it first).

It's not all about 'covering all focal lengths' though, if you find yourself switching between (say) 17 mm and 55 mm quite often in a shoot then the 17-35 and 35-70 (or 28-70) combo is going to be quite annoying... this is the reason I got the 17-55. Just something else to think about.

perhaps another post asking the forum in general if they have had any dealings with the 17-55.

i know there are a couple of users on here who have used them cr8pixels being one and fishaphotos the other. dan seems to have had some isseus with his, i do not recall if fishaphotos liked his or not.

i'm sure there would be other people around who have (Or a friend) has used this lens

personally i am interested too... the 17-35 and 17-55 are in budget, i would prefer the extra 20mm of reach but at the same time i dont want to make too much of a compromise.

jamesw wrote:personally i am interested too... the 17-35 and 17-55 are in budget, i would prefer the extra 20mm of reach but at the same time i dont want to make too much of a compromise.

I reckon the 17-35 is that good you can always crop to an effective 55mm!

No-one has thrown in the "what if Nikon go FF" rumour/argument yet....what if Nikon go FF?

Besides, you can't really use the 17-55 on the F4!

wendellt wrote:i just know with this lens i can get so close to a models face the lens fogs up

Wendell - that's just cos u get them all hot under the collar

FWIW - I own the 17-55 and am very happy with it. OTOH I have never even tried the 17-35

My (confusing) two cents worth

Reschsmooth wrote:
Besides, you can't really use the 17-55 on the F4!

yes yes i know, and now that you remind me i realised why i was leaning more towards the 17-35!!! thanks for that, my decision is a no brainer again!

waiting for some paycheques and then i will go hard...

get some 6ft lightstands later this week to keep me busy :

Put a 17mm on the F4 and you will go 'wow'

The 17mm on DX does seem very usable range, which I missed out when getting the 28-70... maybe soon enough the combo with the 17-35 to get them both rocking FF worlds...

Yi-P wrote:Put a 17mm on the F4 and you will go 'wow'

The 17mm on DX does seem very usable range, which I missed out when getting the 28-70... maybe soon enough the combo with the 17-35 to get them both rocking FF worlds...

yeah i put a 20mm on my f4 and it was pretty damn wide!!! 17mm would be GREAT!

The 17-35 on the f90x is amazing - it's amazing how the 1.5 x crop affects the field of view when comparing both cameras.

Thanks all for your thoughts, the 17-35 sounds like a great lense and the 28-70 seems the one to get instead of the 35-70.
Would love to get both straight away but dont think the fun tickets will stretch that far. Will have to drop down to the local store for test run to workout which one i really need first.