I think tang is selling the 17-35.... for $2300....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?
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.fattybombombom said:I think tang is selling the 17-35.... for $2300....
can consider.... he has 3 pices to let go...
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..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.
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.
it can be used on film bodies from 21mm onwardsltma 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.
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 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?
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...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.. let me pull into this picture.. the legendary 20-35 f2.8 AF-D the predecessor of the 17-35 AF-S.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...
Yeah true, but during that time, no one have much choice, but to use this len (17-35 is not out yet).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.
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:Flaring and ghosting can all be controlled when one knows the possibility of it happening.
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: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.
I do respect your choice.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.