17-35 and 17-55

[jeanie]

someone pm me yesterday regarding these 2 lenses.i might have given him the wrong information.so thought you gurus might wanna help him out & correct me at the same time.

1)can the 17-55DX lens be used on a film camera?what's gonna happen?

2)can the 17-35 be used on the d200 without vignette at wide zoom?(17mm)?
i have this lens but i couldnt recall whether it will vig and i'm too lazy to take out and try it.:bsmilie:

3)in your opinion, which lens will you get?(i know this has been discussed to death but just come straight to the point,i.e the question)

4)which lens is more expensive?i remembered buying mine near 3k donkey years ago.and i was told the 17-55 is about 2.1k?

 

[catchlights]

1)can the 17-55DX lens be used on a film camera?what's gonna happen? can but will have vignetting at 17mm

2)can the 17-35 be used on the d200 without vignette at wide zoom?(17mm)? yes

3)in your opinion, which lens will you get? still 17~55. 17~35 too short for me on the long end.

4)which lens is more expensive? 17~35

 

[orislee]

DX lens can be used on film?

 

[yyD70S]

I have tried the 17-55DX before settling for the other and can confirm that as to point no. 2, vignetting and light fall off (two different things) will only go away at around the 25-30mm range (and greater).

someone pm me yesterday regarding these 2 lenses.i might have given him the wrong information.so thought you gurus might wanna help him out & correct me at the same time.

1)can the 17-55DX lens be used on a film camera?what's gonna happen?

2)can the 17-35 be used on the d200 without vignette at wide zoom?(17mm)?
i have this lens but i couldnt recall whether it will vig and i'm too lazy to take out and try it.:bsmilie:

3)in your opinion, which lens will you get?(i know this has been discussed to death but just come straight to the point,i.e the question)

4)which lens is more expensive?i remembered buying mine near 3k donkey years ago.and i was told the 17-55 is about 2.1k?

 

[Cheesecake]

DX lens can be used on film?

can but like wat catchlights said, with vignetting at 17mm.


17-55.

17-35

 

[vincent9999]

DX lens can be used on film?

saw some discussion mentioned that 22mm and above is usable focal length (on film camera)

 

[wahZe]

Ken Rockwell have done reviews on both.

You can read them here:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1755.htm

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1735.htm

The DX lens can be used on film camera but there will be vignette and light fall-off at the wider end, as mentioned above and in the article.

I once contemplated getting the 17-55, but decided 17mm is not wide enough on the 1.5 crop of Nikon DSLRs. In the end, I settled for the 12-24.

And, yes, this topic have been beaten to death many times on this forum and others. ;p

 

[Cheesecake]

Ken Rockwell have done reviews on both.

You can read them here:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1755.htm

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1735.htm

The DX lens can be used on film camera but there will be vignette and light fall-off at the wider end, as mentioned above and in the article.

I once contemplated getting the 17-55, but decided 17mm is not wide enough on the 1.5 crop of Nikon DSLRs. In the end, I settled for the 12-24.

And, yes, this topic have been beaten to death many times on this forum and others. ;p

:thumbsup: *** is the answer!!!:thumbsup:

 

[Cactus jACK]

on a DSLR, i would say that the default should be the 17-55, unless

1) you are going to shoot significant amount of film.
2) distortion control at the wide-end is very important to you.

like what catchlights said, the 17-35 falls short on range. other features seem almost indistinguishable, although i have read reviews to say that the 17-35 is ever so slightly sharper, and that the 17-55 is more prone to flare. the 17-55DX can be used on FF bodies, but would have the DX image circle from 17-about 26mm. making it only really useful from 26-55mm.

 

[AQVA]

i'll opt for the 17-55dx as it offers better range.

 

[Liew]

the 17-35 is one of the best zoom lens ever made by nikkor. having the extra 20mm doesn't make much difference because you can always move with your feet to get the extra distance. this is the only zoom lens is the market where they actually compare it against the primes. that says a lot.

the 17-55 is not a bad lens, but i don't like it because it's the front element actually moves when you zoom, therefore, it might suck dust to it.

there's so such thing as a too short zoom range, press photogs use it all the time (the canon equivalant - 16-35mm) and they still get the shots. it's how and what a person use it that matters.

 

[simon80]

someone pm me yesterday regarding these 2 lenses.i might have given him the wrong information.so thought you gurus might wanna help him out & correct me at the same time.

1)can the 17-55DX lens be used on a film camera?what's gonna happen?

2)can the 17-35 be used on the d200 without vignette at wide zoom?(17mm)?
i have this lens but i couldnt recall whether it will vig and i'm too lazy to take out and try it.:bsmilie:

3)in your opinion, which lens will you get?(i know this has been discussed to death but just come straight to the point,i.e the question)

4)which lens is more expensive?i remembered buying mine near 3k donkey years ago.and i was told the 17-55 is about 2.1k?

maybe he trying his first step to date u ,, :bsmilie:

 

[posez]

the 17-35 is one of the best zoom lens ever made by nikkor. having the extra 20mm doesn't make much difference because you can always move with your feet to get the extra distance. this is the only zoom lens is the market where they actually compare it against the primes. that says a lot.

the 17-55 is not a bad lens, but i don't like it because it's the front element actually moves when you zoom, therefore, it might suck dust to it.

there's so such thing as a too short zoom range, press photogs use it all the time (the canon equivalant - 16-35mm) and they still get the shots. it's how and what a person use it that matters.

I agree mostly with you - but zoom always helps. That is why so many of ppl have migrated aways from using solely primes. And the longer range you have, the more versatility - the extra 2omm is quite a bit when you need it and don't want to change lens.

 

[jeanie]

maybe he trying his first step to date u ,, :bsmilie:

try harder then.
i'm old enough to see who'se genuinely seeking help and who's hormones are on the rise.

 

[Yatlapball]

Uh. No aperture ring (i.e. G lens). How to use it properly on a film body. :dunno:

 

[jeanie]

Uh. No aperture ring (i.e. G lens). How to use it properly on a film body. :dunno:

oh ya.good point!i forgot about that.
so means cant even use at all?

 

[jOhO]

Uh. No aperture ring (i.e. G lens). How to use it properly on a film body. :dunno:

depends on your film body. f80 f100 f5 f6 and actually.. most AF film bodies can use G lenses.

 

[catchlights]

Uh. No aperture ring (i.e. G lens). How to use it properly on a film body. :dunno:

oh ya.good point!i forgot about that.
so means cant even use at all?

not really correct, and yes, can't use on F90X, F4 or earlier model film body.

 

[erictan8888]

i was in the same position some time ago....
couldn't decide on which of the 2 lens to get....
did some testing, lens comparison and needs analysis....
and...

ended up with the 17-35mm.....
no regrets so far... ha ha
its a very good lens....

 

[Yatlapball]

My bad. I should have thought of the more "modern" film bodies too.