17-35mm f2.8 VS 17-55mm f2.8

[erictan8888]

hi,


just wondering on the pros and cons of these 2 lenses....
considering one of this lens....
like to hear your word on the quality of the lenses...

was thinking of using it as potrait as well as landscape...
what you think ?

thanks

 

[Friday13]

I have thought of this last month before I buy my 17-35mm f2.8. I prefer to have non-DX lenses so that I still have an option to switch to film of FF if there is any.

 

[Francis247]

Hi there,

I don't know if this will help. http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=164396&highlight=35mm+55mm

 

[Luval]

Definately 17-13..

 

[espn]

Definately 17-13..

Wah new len :thumbsup:

 

[markccm]

Definately 17-13..

ya!!

WIP for this lens.
zoom backwards one.

 

[TMC]

Definately 17-13..

you find that lens and i will pay for it :bsmilie:

 

[longkangman]

I have thought of this last month before I buy my 17-35mm f2.8. I prefer to have non-DX lenses so that I still have an option to switch to film of FF if there is any.

See the F13 have I don't have. :cry:

 

[longkangman]

Wah new len :thumbsup:

no lah because of F13 I think.;p

 

[Friday13]

no lah because of F13 I think.;p

Bro, I is Friday13 not Nikon leh. If I Nikon I will also not make a lense that zoom backward one. When you going for birds? Take me as your Tu Di can?

 

[originalsin]

was thinking of using it as potrait as well as landscape...
what you think ?

The 17-35 is not so nice in taking portrait, in my opinion. I use the 70-200 for portrait and I think it is much nicer. But 17-35 is great for landscape. I enjoyed using it when I recently walked the treetop trail. I don't own 17-55 so I can't comment.
I prefer non-DX lens just in case one day Nikon increases the sensor size and I strike TOTO to buy new bodies :bsmilie:

 

[longkangman]

When you going for birds? Take me as your Tu Di can?

With your pectoralis/triceps/biceps brachii can I said no. :lovegrin: :embrass: :sticktong

 

[TMC]

The 17-35 is not so nice in taking portrait, in my opinion. I use the 70-200 for portrait and I think it is much nicer. But 17-35 is great for landscape. I enjoyed using it when I recently walked the treetop trail. I don't own 17-55 so I can't comment.
I prefer non-DX lens just in case one day Nikon increases the sensor size and I strike TOTO to buy new bodies :bsmilie:

Not so nice in taking portraits? Why? If you are looking for just having nice bokeh then this is not the lens for you, might as well get a 85/1.4 or a 50/1.4, hell lot cheaper than 70-200VR for portraits.

 

[markccm]

The 17-35 is not so nice in taking portrait, in my opinion.

really?

KO... yoohoo... where r u?

 

[espn]

The 17-35 is not so nice in taking portrait, in my opinion. I use the 70-200 for portrait and I think it is much nicer. But 17-35 is great for landscape. I enjoyed using it when I recently walked the treetop trail. I don't own 17-55 so I can't comment.
I prefer non-DX lens just in case one day Nikon increases the sensor size and I strike TOTO to buy new bodies :bsmilie:

really?

KO... yoohoo... where r u?

Depends on how you use the glass... some demonstrations :

AF-S 17-35 f/2.8D

Hee.

70-200VR is a good glass basically because it's focal length is longer, so the DOF helps during close up portraits.

 

[originalsin]

Not so nice in taking portraits? Why? If you are looking for just having nice bokeh then this is not the lens for you, might as well get a 85/1.4 or a 50/1.4, hell lot cheaper than 70-200VR for portraits.

Using the 17-35 for portrait, the subject appears fatter than normal when I zoom in and "pull" the subject closer (like half-body shot). The features will be slightly out of proportion too. That is why I don't like it for such shots, not bokeh issue.

I only have 2 lenses: 17-35 and 70-200. Since I don't like to use 17-35 for portrait, I use 70-200 loh. For the time being, I'm not prepared to buy more lenses.

 

[TMC]

I dont find that a problem if I stick with the 35mm length for the lens.

 

[Little_Zeus]

3 options to hunt for my next purchase.
D200, 17-35, 17-55, they are in the same price range.
finally, kick out the D200.

really too hard to decide 17-35 or 17-55.

both have pros and cons

need help also, which one I shall look for~~~~

maybe wait for Tamron 17-50? maybe it will be as good as the 28-75?

but still want a good lens can last for years
then 17-55 will filter out since after few years full frame is common already.
then 17-35, but even now i have full frame body, 17-35 range is not good enough
then get the tamron 17-50 to try it first since it is cheap, but I am looking for a good lens
then 17-55, but...
then 17-35, but...

OMG~ faint~
so decide to work more and get more money, buy both~ :sticktong

 

[TMC]

you wont go wrong with either one. I went with the 17-35 because the 2H price was within my range, which was really low to begin with :bsmilie:

 

[erictan8888]

wow... you all just made my decision harder... hee hee

hmm.... gotta think some more....xian...

17-35 seems to be the more preferred choice here....
but range like not so enough... back to thinking again....

thanks