Which one is better?17-35 or 17-55?

[a1s2d3]

I want to buy a D200 with 70-200/2.8VR and 17-55/2.8 or 17-35/2.8
which is better? thanks

[nightwolf75]

Originally Posted by a1s2d3 I want to buy a D200 with 70-200/2.8VR and 17-55/2.8 or 17-35/2.8 which is better? thanks

please do a search? this has been debated/argued/compared to death ard here...

[longkangman]

Originally Posted by a1s2d3 I want to buy a D200 with 70-200/2.8VR and 17-55/2.8 or 17-35/2.8 which is better? thanks

very much depend on the needs of individual and preference.

[Big Kahuna]

Collecting Trinity? It got to be 17-35

[Oddawg]

Well, the 17-55 does have more range, and if your shooting style is anything like mine, you'd use all the way up to 55mm range.

However, the plus points of the 17-35 are:
1) autofocus is much quicker
2) colour reproduction is much better
3) if Nikon finally goes full frame, this lens can be used
4) and can be used on any Nikon film camera unlike the 17-55 where you'd have a nice black ring around your subject.

[zac08]

You decide...

We can't tell you as the choice is due to our preference and likings. What works for us may not work for you.

[mcn]

it's not if but when ???

but i don't know too

so must well buy 17-55mm -- more range...

Originally Posted by Oddawg However, the plus points of the 17-35 are: 3) if Nikon finally goes full frame, this lens can be used

[Astin]

I would choose 17-35, the 17-55 is nice to look at but I think the extra range is hardly used, may as well get a 50mm prime if needed.

[longkangman]

Originally Posted by Astin I would choose 17-35, the 17-55 is nice to look at but I think the extra range is hardly used, may as well get a 50mm prime if needed.

I agreed above that is why I sold the 17-35f2.8 and get another wide angle.

[sykestang]

Originally Posted by longkangman I agreed above that is why I sold the 17-35f2.8 and get another wide angle.

??? You ever own a 17-35...

So share share which wide angle can replace the AFS17-35 f/2.8 in terms of sharpness and colour reproduction?

[Astin]

Originally Posted by sykestang ??? You ever own a 17-35... So share share which wide angle can replace the AFS17-35 f/2.8 in terms of sharpness and colour reproduction?

I think the 20mm f2.8, correct?

[longkangman]

Originally Posted by sykestang ??? You ever own a 17-35... So share share which wide angle can replace the AFS17-35 f/2.8 in terms of sharpness and colour reproduction?

oops sorry I didnt get from you as your price sucks.

[xxxger]

Originally Posted by a1s2d3 I want to buy a D200 with 70-200/2.8VR and 17-55/2.8 or 17-35/2.8 which is better? thanks

Get the 18-200 better ...
ok lar ... get the 17-55mm lor ... for the extra 20mm
.. BUT ..
if you count this way : $2200 / (55-17) will be about $58 per mm
if you take $2700 / (35-17) will be $150 per mm
if you take $1100 / (200 - 18 ) will be $6 per mm
so i still think the 18-200 mm is more worth it

[sykestang]

Originally Posted by Astin I think the 20mm f2.8, correct?

20mm not that bad... but not wide enough, and not to mention there is a barrel distortion which I don't really like. No offense.

[sykestang]

Originally Posted by longkangman oops sorry I didnt get from you as your price sucks.

Oh no prob... I also do not have any intention to sell you anyway even if you ordered from me anyway cos I know your affordability very well.

[longkangman]

Originally Posted by sykestang Oh no prob... I also do not have any intention to sell you anyway even if you ordered from me anyway cos I know your affordability very well.

thanks you. LOLz

[mcn]

i don't know if it is right but yours a

very interest way of valueing lens

thank you to tell me

Originally Posted by xxxger Get the 18-200 better ... ok lar ... get the 17-55mm lor ... for the extra 20mm .. BUT .. if you count this way : $2200 / (55-17) will be about $58 per mm if you take $2700 / (35-17) will be $150 per mm if you take $1100 / (200 - 18 ) will be $6 per mm so i still think the 18-200 mm is more worth it

[xxxger]

Originally Posted by mcn i don't know if it is right but yours a very interest way of valueing lens thank you to tell me

hehe ... no problem

[catchlights]

Originally Posted by xxxger Get the 18-200 better ... ok lar ... get the 17-55mm lor ... for the extra 20mm .. BUT .. if you count this way : $2200 / (55-17) will be about $58 per mm if you take $2700 / (35-17) will be $150 per mm if you take $1100 / (200 - 18 ) will be $6 per mm so i still think the 18-200 mm is more worth it

this is the first time I ever heard about choosing a lens go by $$ per mm. you are superb!

btw, do you charge shooting weddings by per minutes? per click? per prints? per head counts in the photos?

[slooow]

Originally Posted by catchlights this is the first time I ever heard about choosing a lens go by $$ per mm. you are superb! btw, do you charge shooting weddings by per minutes? per click? per prints? per head counts in the photos?

hahahahaha so 70-200VR how huh?

$20 + - per 1mm leh... hahahaha