17-35mm f2.8 VS 17-55mm f2.8
- Thread starter erictan8888
- Start date
- Status
Stop comparing.....the more you compare the more confused you will get. Too many cooks always spoils the soup. Just go with your guts and purchase it. You will never go wrong with this 2 lens. Depends on how you adapt to it.
erictan8888 said: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
Both are equally good, no difference unless you have bionic eyes. I have both, but I prefer and use 17-55 more because of reach.
espn said:Depends on how you use the glass... some demonstrations :
Hee.
70-200VR is a good glass basically because it's focal length is longer, so the DOF helps during close up portraits.
huh???
Tetrode said:
Not true, by your definition, AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G IF-ED would be 1/2 crippled too. ;p
shutterbug said:
Yes, the 70-200 is likewise crippled IMO - being G.
WARNING! To the Nikon Crazies on the forum - MY OPINION ONLY.
Please avert your eyes if what I say/write offends you.
If your looking to cover both application, 17-55 is a good choice.
But if picture Quality is your concern, the 17-35 is a clear winner.
For me, i go for 28-70 f2.8 and 12-24 F/4
I avoid 17-55 DX Because it dosen't cover Fullframe andit will be useless if you have a
Nikon film SLR or future Full frame camera.
But if picture Quality is your concern, the 17-35 is a clear winner.
For me, i go for 28-70 f2.8 and 12-24 F/4
I avoid 17-55 DX Because it dosen't cover Fullframe andit will be useless if you have a
Nikon film SLR or future Full frame camera.
daveheng said:If your looking to cover both application, 17-55 is a good choice.
But if picture Quality is your concern, the 17-35 is a clear winner.
For me, i go for 28-70 f2.8 and 12-24 F/4
I avoid 17-55 DX Because it dosen't cover Fullframe andit will be useless if you have a
Nikon film SLR or future Full frame camera.
Actually, to most people the picture quality between 17-35 and 17-55 is insignificant. Both lens are being used by Pros.
If you say 17-55 DX dosen't cover FF, then how about 12-24 F/4, that's DX too.
It's a misconception, all DX lens will not be useless because Nikon FF should and will let you use them in special crop mode.
Huh simi huh?shutterbug said:
Please don't reply, he's just out to start wars, just leave him wallowing in his G and VR is useless stuff can liao.Friday13 said:
Don't give him chance to start bo liao wars.
Friday13 said:
No aperture ring - you can't use the G lens on all manual focus bodies, and on AF cameras like the F90x, F601 you can only use it in P and S modes.
I only want to own one lens (esp since a 70-200 is approx SGD2800 new and I don't own a money tree) and be able to use it not only on my "old" cameras (FM2, FE2, FM3a, F90x, F601) but also be able to use it on my "new" D70s.
That is why I just bought an 80-200AFS instead of the 70-200VR.
espn said:
Just because you subscribe to the G and VR crap doesn't mean everyone does.
If you took more time shooting more instead of lording over this forum, you might just take better photos...and probably learn that gadgets like VR are not necessary for taking good photos.
Tetrode said:
Just because you subscribe to the G and VR crap doesn't mean everyone does.
If you took more time shooting more instead of lording over this forum, you might just take better photos...and probably learn that gadgets like VR are not necessary for taking good photos.
espn said:
Friday13 said:
See what I mean? Just leave him be.
espn said:See what I mean? Just leave him be.
A little Nikon crazy are we now?
Do you sit in the dark playing with your lenses?
Caressing their G spots and VR bits? tsk tsk...:bsmilie:
- Status
Similar threads
