AFS 17-35mmf/2.8D IF-ED vs AFS 17-55mm f / 2.8G IF-ED DX


Status
Not open for further replies.

USM

Senior Member
Apr 25, 2002
14,982
0
0
Visit site
Which one is a better buy since they are almost the same price, and both are f2.8 lenses? :dunno: What about the optical quality, flare control, color, distortion, etc of both lenses? :think: Which one is better? :confused:
 

ltma

New Member
Jul 20, 2004
157
0
0
Singapore
If you are using digital camera, I would suggest the 17-55 mm since you will be getting more focal length. However, it cannot be used in film camera unlike the 17-35 mm.
 

T50JOHN

New Member
May 19, 2004
105
0
0
West Zone
I was told that the 17-35mm cost about $2900 and the 17-55mm cost about $2200.

There are some difference in price.

What prices do you get?
 

fattybombombom

New Member
Jun 29, 2004
406
0
0
98
singapore
T50JOHN said:
I was told that the 17-35mm cost about $2900 and the 17-55mm cost about $2200.

There are some difference in price.

What prices do you get?
I think tang is selling the 17-35.... for $2300....
can consider.... he has 3 pices to let go...
 

sykestang

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2003
5,550
1
36
48
studiospace
sykestang.clubsnap.org
fattybombombom said:
I think tang is selling the 17-35.... for $2300....
can consider.... he has 3 pices to let go...
Thanks, fattybombombom and yes I still have the last piece of the 17-35 available unbidded. However, the price of the set will depend on the last three highest bids.
Click here to see the bids

ltma, fyi, 17-35 and the 17-55 mm is designed for different purpose. One is a true wide angle len, while the the latter is a wide angle to mid tele zoom len.

Please refer to this review by Bjørn Rørslett on the comparision/review of these 2 lens. Bjorn Rorslett's review.

17-35 is a well tested and renown len for its superb performance. :D
 

gadrian

New Member
May 24, 2003
1,242
0
0
44
Singapore
www.snauzzer.com
sykestang said:
17-35 mm and the 17-55 mm is designed for different purpose. One is a true wide angle len, while the the latter is a wide angle to mid tele zoom len.
Define TRUE Wide angle, when both lenses are both WideAngle? And on a DX Cam body.. they are both the same with more reach on the 17-55..

In my opinion, from my limited use of the 17-55, its quality, image sharpness, contrast and colour reproduction is just awesome.

Many will beg to differ that that 17-55 is even more superior then the 17-35.

I would say the main difference in the 17-35 and 17-55 is one is DX and the other is not.

If you are still a film user while dabbling also in digital.. then I would saw.. 17-35, but if you are not considering film and are primarily a digital user.. heck 17-55 would be my prize. the 17-55 would be the ideal lens, equal to the range given by the 28-70 AF-S f/2.8.

Reading all the reviews Bjørn Rørslett and Thom Hogan and all the threads on DPReview will show give you a high confidence that both are equal and if not the 17-55 is a so much more pleasing and gorgeous lens then the 17-35.
 

Zerstorer

Senior Member
Jul 8, 2002
3,438
0
36
gadrian said:
the 17-55 would be the ideal lens, equal to the range given by the 28-70 AF-S f/2.8.
Greater range actually. ~25.5-80mm. Almost as useful as a 24-85.
 

Firebird

New Member
Jul 31, 2004
24
0
0
Dreamland
17-35mm is a Nikon classic and legendary lens. Unbeatable in quality. It is a must have kind of lens (or dream to own one) for Nikon film camera and can be used in Nikon Digital camera too.
17-55mm has yet to prove itself yet due to its limited availability in the market. May one day become a classic and legendary lens for the Nikon digital camera. The ball is on 17-55 to match the quality of 17-35mm. While there are good review for 17-55, there are also quite a number of negative review for 17-55mm too but none so far (in terms of negative review)for 17-35mm so it depend of which review you read out there.
 

ken00

New Member
Mar 14, 2002
324
0
0
Visit site
so reviews good means good
and reviews bad means bad?

Firebird said:
17-35mm is a Nikon classic and legendary lens. Unbeatable in quality. It is a must have kind of lens (or dream to own one) for Nikon film camera and can be used in Nikon Digital camera too.
17-55mm has yet to prove itself yet due to its limited availability in the market. May one day become a classic and legendary lens for the Nikon digital camera. The ball is on 17-55 to match the quality of 17-35mm. While there are good review for 17-55, there are also quite a number of negative review for 17-55mm too but none so far (in terms of negative review)for 17-35mm so it depend of which review you read out there.
 

Firebird

New Member
Jul 31, 2004
24
0
0
Dreamland
Review are just guideline done by some pro who specialise in reviewing of camera and lens. What is interesting is that almost none has come out with any fault with the 17-35mm .. thats all. Again it is a matter of opinion for reader to take their review seriously. Importantly read how they conduct the test and check up the creditability of the reviewer.
Finally it is also always good to go down to the shop and test it out which I did for the 17-35mm.
 

ltma

New Member
Jul 20, 2004
157
0
0
Singapore
I think the choice is very straight forward here if you are a digital shooter. 17-55mm would not work in film camera period!

For digital shooter --- buy 17-55 mm
For film shooter --- buy 17-35 mm

Am I missing something here?
 

offspring

Senior Member
Jun 3, 2003
1,472
0
36
www.momofuku.asia
ltma said:
If you are using digital camera, I would suggest the 17-55 mm since you will be getting more focal length. However, it cannot be used in film camera unlike the 17-35 mm.
it can be used on film bodies from 21mm onwards
 

gadrian

New Member
May 24, 2003
1,242
0
0
44
Singapore
www.snauzzer.com
ltma said:
I think the choice is very straight forward here if you are a digital shooter. 17-55mm would not work in film camera period!

For digital shooter --- buy 17-55 mm
For film shooter --- buy 17-35 mm

Am I missing something here?
Fundamentally you are quite spot on. But just to correct something.. as offspring has pointed out and as some of us have experimented the 17-55 actually work from 21-55 on a film body. Another DX lens that works on a film body is the 12-24 from 18-24 it is usuable on a film body.
 

ltma

New Member
Jul 20, 2004
157
0
0
Singapore
Thanks for correcting me. I learnt something today.
 

USM

Senior Member
Apr 25, 2002
14,982
0
0
Visit site
acetylcholine said:
hmm...what is a USM 'user' buying nikon stuff ?haha
Aiyoyo bro.... cannot mah??? :dunno: Can't I jump to the Dark Side? :devil:
 

scanner

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2002
1,606
0
0
Visit site
gadrian said:
Define TRUE Wide angle, when both lenses are both WideAngle? And on a DX Cam body.. they are both the same with more reach on the 17-55..

In my opinion, from my limited use of the 17-55, its quality, image sharpness, contrast and colour reproduction is just awesome.

Many will beg to differ that that 17-55 is even more superior then the 17-35.

I would say the main difference in the 17-35 and 17-55 is one is DX and the other is not.

If you are still a film user while dabbling also in digital.. then I would saw.. 17-35, but if you are not considering film and are primarily a digital user.. heck 17-55 would be my prize. the 17-55 would be the ideal lens, equal to the range given by the 28-70 AF-S f/2.8.

Reading all the reviews Bjørn Rørslett and Thom Hogan and all the threads on DPReview will show give you a high confidence that both are equal and if not the 17-55 is a so much more pleasing and gorgeous lens then the 17-35.
Hmm.. correct me if I'm wrong, sounds like you are saying AFS 17-55 DX is a better choice for digital user. I beg to differ. I would say, it depends on your tolerance level on flare, ghosting control, etc...

If you are shooting purely as a landscape/architecture kind of shot, which len would you choose? 17-35 or 17-55? Do bear that in mind that the 17-35 is stronger in both areas. Definitely, 17-55 is a good len (especially with it longer zoom range), but at the end of the day to what extend you are able to tolerate the above mentioned points.

Personally, I would choose the 17-35 over the 17-55 len, as I'm both a digital and film user. In addition, I'm wondering, if with the imminent of a full frame DSLR, what kind of market value would 17-55 DX len command? ;)
 

gadrian

New Member
May 24, 2003
1,242
0
0
44
Singapore
www.snauzzer.com
scanner said:
Hmm.. correct me if I'm wrong, sounds like you are saying AFS 17-55 DX is a better choice for digital user. I beg to differ. I would say, it depends on your tolerance level on flare, ghosting control, etc...
Hmm.. let me pull into this picture.. the legendary 20-35 f2.8 AF-D the predecessor of the 17-35 AF-S.

Notorious for ghosting and flaring.. yet.. a lens with a super reputation and a legendary history.

Flaring and ghosting can all be controlled when one knows the possibility of it happening.

I still hold that the 17-55 is an awesome lens.. and for a fully digital user.. yes I would give it a thumbs up.

If I was a fully digital user.. 17-55 would be my choice.. Having used the 17-35 on the D100 and D1x.. it is wide.. but not long enough. Especially during event coverage. The 17-55 is more versatile.. and fits the shoes much better.

Full Frame SLR.. not really a concern now.. when is it coming out.. 3 years time? ROI already achieved. So it still makes sense.. As a commercial photographer.. ROI is most important. If you are an enthuasist.. then thats another side of the story.

But ultimately.. its up to you the photographer to decide.

Have fun.
 

scanner

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2002
1,606
0
0
Visit site
gadrian said:
Hmm.. let me pull into this picture.. the legendary 20-35 f2.8 AF-D the predecessor of the 17-35 AF-S.

Notorious for ghosting and flaring.. yet.. a lens with a super reputation and a legendary history.
Yeah true, but during that time, no one have much choice, but to use this len (17-35 is not out yet).

gadrain said:
Flaring and ghosting can all be controlled when one knows the possibility of it happening.
Yup, agreed on this point, but again under certain circumferences such as taking sunset landscape picture, the flare control for 17-35 is better, isn't it?

gadrain said:
Full Frame SLR.. not really a concern now.. when is it coming out.. 3 years time? ROI already achieved. So it still makes sense.. As a commercial photographer.. ROI is most important. If you are an enthuasist.. then thats another side of the story.

But ultimately.. its up to you the photographer to decide.

Have fun.
Agreed on the ROI if full frame is out.. 3 years time? And again the same applies to 17-35 len as well (> 3yrs?).

gadrain said:
I still hold that the 17-55 is an awesome lens.. and for a fully digital user.. yes I would give it a thumbs up.
I do respect your choice. ;)

Cheer
 

Status
Not open for further replies.