17-35mm f2.8 or 20mm f2.8?

[tubbykat]

hi all, i am at a dilema on which to get. i also own the 50mm f1.4 and was thinking of the 35mm f2 but it's a bit close to my 50mm.

so will 17-35 zoom be better for wideangle or a 20mm/24mm better?

thanks in advance!

[Henessy]

For me 17-35mm f2.8. If you do a search, I think there is a comparison between these 2 lens before

[azzurri]

At over 700g, the 17-35mm is not the lightest of lenses; so if you do not mind the weight, it is a darn rugged lens that delivers very good quality pictures. Assuming that you are using a D300/D700 with the MB-D10 or the D3, attach a speedlight and using the 17-35mm, your set up will weigh easily over 2kg!

So if weight and the price of the lens is not an issue, the 17-35mm is the way to go. In terms of quality, I understand that it is much better than the 24mm.

[grandmama]

i think it depends on what you want to shoot

17-35mm saves your a*s when you shoot events. Cannot go wrong with that. (even on cropped frame it is a useful 25-50mm)

For my own personal work, I use the 35mm/f2 a lot. It is not similar to the 50mm. It focuses very close, and the "look" from f2 wide open with a close subject is something that the rest does not have. a 35/f2, if you know how to use the perspective, is one of the most versatile lenses you can have. it straddles the wide and the normal (in the past it was considered wide) .

I also have the 24mm and 20mm, they are nice lenses in their own right. Personally I dont see difference in performance between 24 and 20mm in real life shots. I shoot a lot wide open, i dont shoot much landscape though.

If i go out to shoot my own stuff, i always use primes, thats how i grew up in terms of photography and i always come out with better (in terms of creativity) shots with primes.

If i shoot a wedding, i will use the 17-35mm no doubt. Getting That shot is more important than getting the kind of shots that we personally like.

for the price of the 17-35mm you can probably get a 35/2, 24/2.8, 20/2.8 together. We pay a premium for the professional primes for the versatility they offer us. If i dont do weddings and events i will go for the primes no doubt. They are much more compact too.

[photobum]

I sold both the 35mm and 20mm and bought the 17-35 some years ago. My verdict is the 17-35 has better image quality and less distortion.

[tubbykat]

thanks all, i forgot to mention what i will be using the lens for.

i shoot kids and maternity portraits in the studio and am now venturing into shooting kids outdoors. i do not use flash and my style for outdoors is shooting subject close with aperture wideopen which is why i like the 50mm f1.4. however as my camera is the D200 and not a full frame model, i find getting wide shots difficult with the 50mm and i have to run quite a distance away. Thus i was thinking the 17-35 would give me a good range for outdoors or shooting kids interiors. i read somewhere that the 17-35 performace is as good as prime lenses thus the hefty price tag.

grandmama you are right, i can buy the 20mm, 35mm and another lens for the price i pay for the 17-35. should i do that and have a lighter bag but fumble with lens changes and miss shots (you know with kids they run around quite a bit).

another thing i read is that the 17-35 at wideopen doesn't give extremely sharp images is this true? say there's a family shot and at 2.8 if there's some depth difference between family members it gets quite fuzzy. let me know thanks (the review from this link: http://www.camerahobby.com/Review-17-35mm.htm )

[grandmama]

i have used the 17-35mm

people used to say prime better than zoom in terms of image quality but i think it does not always apply nowadays.

you do not have to worry about anything about the 17-35mm's image quality. It really is very good. You wont miss your primes in that way. at least the one i used was sharp.

I like the 35mm becuase of the bokeh at f2. the 17-35 cannot match.

my 24mm was tack sharp.

I also have the 14-24/2.8. On a cropped frame it will become a 20-35. Now this lens is Really sharp. I use it on d300 and d700. i shoot wide open almost all the time.

the 35mm/f2 becomes a close focusing 52mm/f2 on a cropped frame. i found that useful on the D300.

THere is something about using primes that zooms cannot match. To me it is the whole process of taking pictures....this is personal. I hate big lenses also.

[chisiang]

I think 17-35 is NOT IDEAL for portrait shots.

I use the 17-35 a lot more since I've gotten the D700. I used to pair it with my D2X. For landscape, events, group shots, it's ok.

For portrait, your subject will look real FUNNY. The limps or head will not be proportionate.

the 17-35 is SHARP. At F2.8, the corners will be less sharp. Step up to F4 and your worries gone.

[chisiang]

I dunno, but for those who complaint about weight of a lens, I think too much Kenrockwell is bad for you.

We're not talking about going rock climbing with your gear, or you need to hike in the jungles for days.

One should not sacrifice image quality for a little trade off in weight of your gear

[marios_pittas]

Originally Posted by grandmama for the price of the 17-35mm you can probably get a 35/2, 24/2.8, 20/2.8 together. We pay a premium for the professional primes for the versatility they offer us. If i dont do weddings and events i will go for the primes no doubt. They are much more compact too.

I would have to agree, though I don't do events appart for charity and close friends.

A point to note though: I find it hard to think that you can use anything below 24mm and get away with the lens distortion for commercial potraits.. Just my opinion, if anyone could share on-line examples I would love to see use for commercial potraits at say 17mm (for kids or similar, not weddings where you can tag the bride's dress at the edges of the frame)..

Just my 2cents

-- Marios

[iamblurblur]

Originally Posted by chisiang I dunno, but for those who complaint about weight of a lens, I think too much Kenrockwell is bad for you. We're not talking about going rock climbing with your gear, or you need to hike in the jungles for days. One should not sacrifice image quality for a little trade off in weight of your gear

agree... it will be a joy to bring your camera and lenses out taking photos when you know what (nicely taken pictures...) will come out from the weighty equipments... it's worth the extra muscle training!!!

[liquidityzero]

I personally think that the 35mm f/2 will be a nice replacement for your 50mm f/1.4, since you did mention that you like to shoot wide open most of the time.
Or how about trying a Sigma 30mm f/1.4??

[-ReignOfComputer-]

Top up a few hundred bucks from the 17-35mm to get the much better 14-24 f2.8.This lens is even used by canon people on adapters

[photobum]

Originally Posted by -ReignOfComputer- Top up a few hundred bucks from the 17-35mm to get the much better 14-24 f2.8.This lens is even used by canon people on adapters

No need to top-up. Some places are selling the 17-35 at higher price than the 14-24. Anyway, I am not really interested in the latter since it is a G lens. It will not work with my F3 and FA.

[grandmama]

In the first place you are already looking for a wide angle. so the characteristics of wide angle lenses should not be the case of discussion.

If you want want your subject to look the most "beautiful" by all means use your 85mm. I dont think thats what you are looking at here.

I have read reviews on these lenses the numerous photozones ken rockwells etc. and it is easy to magnify the differences that were mentioned in these reviews. In real life, we also bear in mind that it is getting the shot that counts.

Having used all that I have talked about, i dont see any visibly noticable difference in image quality between all that I have talked about.

The issue i see here is not about image quality. It is one's shooting style.

The 35/f2 cannot replicated by the 17/35. The 35 perspective can be used for portraits if used properly. Ask Salgado.

BTW the weight of the 3 lenses added together is not too far from that of a single 17-35 anyway. Weight is not the issue.

If i dont need to cover event, i stick to 24 , 35, 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 for personal use.
I do like the 28mm a lot, the best nikon 28mm is the AIS. the AF one is lousy.

for taking children, i use the 35 to go close and 50 for others I will use wide open all the time and bokeh it to death. Once in a while just to **** off, i use the 85/1.4 to remind myself how nice this lens it.

[jnet6]

Do a search on my thread, i've examples for 17-35,20,12-24. @ 20mm

[marios_pittas]

Originally Posted by jnet6 Do a search on my thread, i've examples for 17-35,20,12-24. @ 20mm

Dude, you mean this one: http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=403344 ?

[tubbykat]

hi all thanks for your comments, i got the 17-35 yesterday!!! *ouch* to my pocket.

grandmama, you make the most sense and understood me most, i wanted a wideangle and will not consider one that will not work on my F100.

anyone who wants to sell their 35mm f2 i will consider buying 2ndhand

thanks much to you all

[catchlights]

yo Maryann, buy new lens har,

17~35 so more....

[lsisaxon]

Originally Posted by tubbykat hi all thanks for your comments, i got the 17-35 yesterday!!! *ouch* to my pocket. grandmama, you make the most sense and understood me most, i wanted a wideangle and will not consider one that will not work on my F100. anyone who wants to sell their 35mm f2 i will consider buying 2ndhand thanks much to you all

Can't the 14-24/2.8 work on the F100?