AF-S DX 17-55mm vs AF-S 17-35mm

[Adiemus]

Which lens would you buy? I'm thinking of getting one of these lenses.

AF-S DX 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

or

AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED


Please advise. With regards to costing and sharpness, etc.

thanks in advance

[KNIGHT ONG]

I would prefers 17-35mm, can be used on MF SLR and DSLR.

[espn]

My vote goes with KNIGHT ONG.

[Dennis]

Wel if you are all digital 17-55

[jOhO]

17-35!!

[wudabao]

resell value 17-35 is better because it can be use on film.
this kind of good lens can keep for many years no matter how is the improvement of the camera body.

suppose one day nikon release 1:1 DSLR, then all the DX lens will be wasted.
for those cheap DX lens like D70's kit lens it is fine to keep currently. but for those lens expensive than the body better to think carefully for the future usage.

i guess 17-35's quality is also better than the 17-55 although i never got the chance to try them

[espn]

Even if Nikon goes FF one day, I still believe the consumer DSLRs will be 1.5x at least for quite sometime, the DX won't go to be wasted.

Ok... let's not carry on... lest this turns into a DX vs FF thread again

I voted for the 17-35 because of the cross 'platform' compatability to both film and digital SLR.

Some things I don't quite like about 17-55, the zoom ring hinders my fingers on a consumer SLR, my left hand turns the ring and at the same time brushes my right hand holding the grip. But there's no problem on a pro body like the D1/D2 or so, I heard.

Also, maybe I'm spoilt, but the front part protrudes when zooming, it's covered by the lens hood so nobody notices... hee (so does the AF-S 28-70 f/2.8).

[Jay]

Its 17-35 for me as I have read that its performance is better than the 17-55. Am still hunting for this lens to complete the trinity.

[espn]

OT:

Jay, I know CP has one piece, Lords has one. Need my help to buy buy buy?

[Jay]

Originally Posted by espn OT: Jay, I know CP has one piece, Lords has one. Need my help to buy buy buy?

Thanks Devil!! I'm look for a used one. Already spent too much and need to reserve some for my other hobbies.

[neokn]

Hi espn,

sorri... ot abit...
do you happened to know the best $$$ for this baby?

Originally Posted by espn OT: Jay, I know CP has one piece, Lords has one. Need my help to buy buy buy?

[Adiemus]

thanks for the comments guys. anyone knows the best place and price for the 17-35mm baby? Seems that it's the wiser choice in this case.

[clive]

have u considered AFD nikkor 20-35/2.8? cheaper than afs17-35 and quality also vgd. 20mmx1.5->30mm on dslr which is still not too bad

[Adiemus]

20mm not wide enough leh.....

[espn]

Urm.. the 20-35 is still a nice lens. The production has stopped however and it's been replaced by 17-35.

The 17-35 last quoted to me by CP was SGD$2950. Lords I think slightly cheaper. The trinities have always been around such price

But once you have it, I guess it's all you'll need unless you want ultra wide.

[NorthernLights]

I beg to differ.

The 17-55 DX has more reach and probably can shoot more between wide and mid tele....being 24.5 - 82.5mm vs 17-35 (24.5-52.5).

17-55 - $2200 incl GST.
17-35 - $2930 incl GST.

$630!!! Or rather you are paying $630 more for parts of the glass you will never get to use with your D70 (I presume you own the D70). Imagine the extra weight....ya film and digital....I would say for most of us...we'd never touch film again lah....extra cost, bad shots wasted etc...whatever for? It's afterall a hobby right? Ther's never an end to getting the best. In fact, some will even ask...why need an f2.8 for a wide angle? Unless you're a pro journalist, covering events in low light and struggle to balance ISO (image quality) with shutter speed by having f2.8...Again if we're non pro and having not the skills of a pro, would you shoot with f2.8 and have a higher risk of getting out of focus areas of a pic? For wedding, and events involving group subjects...minimum f5.6 or better f8.

Just imagine....that's a SB800 or a 2X TC or 1.4x TC EII plus some spare $$$.

Colour wise...I think it's comparable. Sharpness wise...definitely same.

Most importantly it is the quality of composition, exposure etc....if you get none of this right, the colours will never be rich.

The most important thing is what you need or what is a better deal for what you own now.

Check out Dpreview....many dumped their 28-70s or 17-35s for the 17-55...less weight, lower cost...newer technology.

[espn]

Actually Tim, I touched film after touching digital. And I still like slides & B&W film, I'm of course more frugal in shooting film than digital But there are cases whereby people hold on to both film and digital for different reasons.

The buyer has to decide if he/she will shoot film in the future. I guess this is one of the major deciding factors.

For me I'll stick with FF thanks.

[Adiemus]

sigh..... i'm easily swayed....

[neokn]

can understand how you feel...
17-35 or 17-55 DX... tough choice...

Originally Posted by Adiemus sigh..... i'm easily swayed....

[espn]

If you're baffled, go for the 17-35, a price of a 2nd hand 17-35 is near the price of a new 17-55.