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

[jOhO]

i realised i haven't in all my posts in this thread, addressed the topic at hand.

i've at one stage had to choose between these two lenses (i am a purely digital user) and my choice went with the 17-35.

2 reasons off the top of my head:

1. light fall off more on 17-55.
2. closer focussing distance on the 17-35 / slightly better max reproduction ratio.

the presence or not of the aperture ring did not bother me one bit, but as tetrode has advised, you would want to take note of that if u have manual bodies, or intend to get one in future, or if you are in the firm belief that nikon will release full frame digital cameras.

 

[espn]

as for ur personal vendettas and how it started from which thread, the rest of us DO NOT CARE. don't bring it to this thread when the rest of us don't know wat's happened. take it in private if you hate him that much. (this last paragraph applies to espn too.)

Don't worry about me, I'm not replying to him, no point, that's why you don't see me bother much.

Only he's entitled to his opinions and others can't. Like I said, I don't care what others think of me, those who know me personally will know how I'm like and that's all that matters.

The more people try to get at me... just let it be. I not concerned at all. Too many liao. Especially those who are so conscientious of my post counts and personal 'king' jokes.

 

[nightwolf75]

ok lar.. let's single out ONE person.

how come i've always heard of espn being fxxked up becos of his bullsh!t of bbb and krw and all that, but seldom a word of appreciation for the help and advise he has given? u mean to say his 20k (or watever the amt is i didn't even take note) posts are all ABOUT bbb?

get with the culture of CS or leave. he and anyone else has a serious side, and a playful side. it is evident in this thread alone. espn has given serious advise from what he knows, and has also played and joked around IN THIS THREAD, no need to go search the rest of his posts....

so he sux for joking around too much, but doesn't UNsuck for giving good advise? it doesn't take a 3yo to realise that he doesn't expect or insist that you buy all pro equipment becos he says BBB. u think he gets a commission from nikon? (espn, if you do, you better go eat sh!t) :bsmilie:

take note i'm just using him as an example. it's not becos we are bosom buddies or watever. quite honestly we don't know each other that well except for crapping on CS. he has given me advise on the odd occasion too.

my point for the above is that u gotta take the good with the bad. i could agree that all that bbb and krw sh!t is not helping, but then u CONVENIENTLY forget (or perhaps don't even know about) all the other things he's helped with.

as far as i feel and see, you, tetrode, have contributed LESS to this community than he has. so in that light, you should ease up.

come to think of it, i really dunno when where how and why all this KRW crap started, and yes it's all full of crap, but you don't see me bursting a blood vessel. what makes you and i so different that you do?

as for ur personal vendettas and how it started from which thread, the rest of us DO NOT CARE. don't bring it to this thread when the rest of us don't know wat's happened. take it in private if you hate him that much. (this last paragraph applies to espn too.)

fyi for those a little dense to get it so far - the KRW 'praises' are jokes poking fun at KRW's reviews and opinions. and believe me... we are not the only ones online doing so.

 

[Tetrode]

ok lar.. let's single out ONE person.

how come i've always heard of espn being fxxked up becos of his bullsh!t of bbb and krw and all that, but seldom a word of appreciation for the help and advise he has given? u mean to say his 20k (or watever the amt is i didn't even take note) posts are all ABOUT bbb?

get with the culture of CS or leave. he and anyone else has a serious side, and a playful side. it is evident in this thread alone. espn has given serious advise from what he knows, and has also played and joked around IN THIS THREAD, no need to go search the rest of his posts....

so he sux for joking around too much, but doesn't UNsuck for giving good advise? it doesn't take a 3yo to realise that he doesn't expect or insist that you buy all pro equipment becos he says BBB. u think he gets a commission from nikon? (espn, if you do, you better go eat sh!t) :bsmilie:

take note i'm just using him as an example. it's not becos we are bosom buddies or watever. quite honestly we don't know each other that well except for crapping on CS. he has given me advise on the odd occasion too.

my point for the above is that u gotta take the good with the bad. i could agree that all that bbb and krw sh!t is not helping, but then u CONVENIENTLY forget (or perhaps don't even know about) all the other things he's helped with.

as far as i feel and see, you, tetrode, have contributed LESS to this community than he has. so in that light, you should ease up.

come to think of it, i really dunno when where how and why all this KRW crap started, and yes it's all full of crap, but you don't see me bursting a blood vessel. what makes you and i so different that you do?

as for ur personal vendettas and how it started from which thread, the rest of us DO NOT CARE. don't bring it to this thread when the rest of us don't know wat's happened. take it in private if you hate him that much. (this last paragraph applies to espn too.)

I have acknowledged in a previous post ESPN's contributions of help within this forum. However, that doesn't give him the right to lord over the forum nor does it allow him to do whatever he pleases right?
This is the last I will post on the matter of espn. Live and let live.

However, I will still state my opinion regarding the merits or limitations of equipment be they Canon, Nikon or whatever. If you do not like what you read, either skip to the next post or politely disagree. Do this and all will be "quiet on the western front".

 

[Tetrode]

fyi for those a little dense to get it so far - the KRW 'praises' are jokes poking fun at KRW's reviews and opinions. and believe me... we are not the only ones online doing so.

The joke isn't highbrow to begin with and people do subscribe to international forums too alright? So don't think that the capacity to get the punchline is restricted to only yourselves.

Jokes are only good for a while - take a joke too far and it becomes old very fast.

 

[Jimbotan]

i realised i haven't in all my posts in this thread, addressed the topic at hand.

i've at one stage had to choose between these two lenses (i am a purely digital user) and my choice went with the 17-35.

2 reasons off the top of my head:

1. light fall off more on 17-55.
2. closer focussing distance on the 17-35 / slightly better max reproduction ratio.

the presence or not of the aperture ring did not bother me one bit, but as tetrode has advised, you would want to take note of that if u have manual bodies, or intend to get one in future, or if you are in the firm belief that nikon will release full frame digital cameras.

I was also in this position some time ago and chose the 17-55 for the following reasons:

1. Good performance wide open, which is my #1 consideration to pay such a high price for a lens capable of f2.8. I have a 28-105D which produces amazing pictures stopped down (which I also use as my walk-around lens sometimes)
2. Less need to change lenses (lazy) and smaller gap to 70mm (55-70mm gap instead of 35-70mm). I do not intend to cover the 55-70mm gap but if 35-70mm gap, may be tempted.
3. Cheaper (do not have deep pockets).

17-35 is highly regarded as a landscape lens with amazing resolution stopped down. It is a lengendary Nikkor. It has an aperture ring if backward compatibility is a concern and it will be suitable for film as well as DX format DSLRs as well as compatible with FF DSLRs if they become a reality (assuming lens mount is the same).

Both are good lenses, but take note of their different features, prices, performance sweet spots and other pros and cons. Choose the one that best fit your needs and budget.

Good luck...

 

[jOhO]

I was also in this position some time ago and chose the 17-55 for the following reasons:

1. Good performance wide open, which is my #1 consideration to pay such a high price for a lens capable of f2.8. I have a 28-105D which produces amazing pictures stopped down (which I also use as my walk-around lens sometimes)
2. Less need to change lenses (lazy) and smaller gap to 70mm (55-70mm gap instead of 35-70mm). I do not intend to cover the 55-70mm gap but if 35-70mm gap, may be tempted.
3. Cheaper (do not have deep pockets).

17-35 is highly regarded as a landscape lens with amazing resolution stopped down. It is a lengendary Nikkor. It has an aperture ring if backward compatibility is a concern and it will be suitable for film as well as DX format DSLRs as well as compatible with FF DSLRs if they become a reality (assuming lens mount is the same).

Both are good lenses, but take note of their different features, prices, performance sweet spots and other pros and cons. Choose the one that best fit your needs and budget.

Good luck...

yeah good reasoning on your part. it's really very specific to application. for yours, the extra 20mm plays a very important part, for me, a 50/1.4 is on the other camera, for natural light images with big aperture on a camera with good high iso capability, the 17-55 @ 2.8 is "too slow" for me for this application anywayz...

so with the above, i can willingly forgo the 20mm for my points in my previous post, which mean more to me. (i don't need a macro lens to shoot wedding bands or food shots!)

that just illustrates how important it is to know wat the application is b4 purchasing.

but again, i feel it's quite chicken and egg. buy lens first then evolve your shooting style, or evolve first then buy lens? both has it's pros and cons. it's not an easy decision to make, especially when one hasn't had enuff shooting experience.

 

[jOhO]

I have acknowledged in a previous post ESPN's contributions of help within this forum. However, that doesn't give him the right to lord over the forum nor does it allow him to do whatever he pleases right?
This is the last I will post on the matter of espn. Live and let live.

However, I will still state my opinion regarding the merits or limitations of equipment be they Canon, Nikon or whatever. If you do not like what you read, either skip to the next post or politely disagree. Do this and all will be "quiet on the western front".

peace man.

 

[erictan8888]

thanks for all the advice....

not surprisingly, hee hee i have not come to a decision yet....
have not had the chance to go and try these 2 lenses out due to work committment...
to make some $ to buy one of these....

one of my concern is also the bokeh... dun know why, but i seem to have a weak spot for bokeh....

as ispend more time thinking about it, more options came up...
i know it is not comparable, but was toying with the idea of getting the 18-200mm and the 105mm VR and i think still got money to spare, if i choose the 17-35mm... hee hee

funny thing is that i dreamt i was shooting at a location last night...
and due to the fact that i was also waiting for the MC-30 to be in stock, i dun know how, but in the dream, i actually set the timer for landscape picture, and a monkey came along and took the camera, then climed up a tree and threw the camera on the ground....

imagine my shock, and in the dream, i was devastated, and checked for damage on the camera... and found that apart from a few scratches, there was no damage.... ha ha

should stop thinking liao, if not tonight another dream....

photography... it can really take control over your life.....

 

[monokydni]

peace man.

Proud of you fellas. Good men with good sense. All peaceful on the western front. Now let's go back to photography! I've been torn between these two lenses as well. The discussion has helped me decide. Thanks.

 

[N-user]

peace man.

wah finally I can knock off liao.... been selling char siew bao, siew mai, har kao, popiah, mee rebus for many days liao... phew, time to rest... :devil:

 

[espn]

I also just knock off but home liao

 

[Tetrode]

i realised i haven't in all my posts in this thread, addressed the topic at hand.

i've at one stage had to choose between these two lenses (i am a purely digital user) and my choice went with the 17-35.

2 reasons off the top of my head:

1. light fall off more on 17-55.
2. closer focussing distance on the 17-35 / slightly better max reproduction ratio.

the presence or not of the aperture ring did not bother me one bit, but as tetrode has advised, you would want to take note of that if u have manual bodies, or intend to get one in future, or if you are in the firm belief that nikon will release full frame digital cameras.

Just a minor clarification if I may, only the DX aspect of the 17-55 will have an impact on the last point made (FF dSLR) and not because of the fact that it is G; as there exist G lenses that cover full frame. i.e. 70-200 and 105VR.

Although, the 70-200 is DX optimised so you may encounter more vignetting using this lens than you would the 80-200 AF-D on a FF camera (film or digital).

 

[F5user]

Well.. here's my 2 cents worth i gues...


I LOVE the 17-55, convenient, good range, built very very well and most of all, sharp, esp around the 20 - 40 range.

However, like another CS member mentioned above, i normally use 2 bodies when working, 1 with the 17-35, and another with the 50 1.4 with iso set to 1600 or above for low light coverage.

Why i would choose the 17-35,

1. well.. it's the 17-35.... i'm sure you've heard enough rants and raves about this huge chunk of glass.
2. It won't fit my DCN (kodak) & moreover, I still use film for most of my assignments, B/W, etc... hence the 17-55's out of the qn.


Price wise, i would say that the 17-55's slightly more affordable than the 17-35, with used ones here going for around 700 - 900 usd. and the 17-35's going for 950 - 1200 usd. So hey, if that falls into your budget, and you dont' see yourself using film or investing in a FF kodak DCN, go for the 17-55...

 

[monokydni]

Well.. here's my 2 cents worth i gues...


I LOVE the 17-55, convenient, good range, built very very well and most of all, sharp, esp around the 20 - 40 range.

However, like another CS member mentioned above, i normally use 2 bodies when working, 1 with the 17-35, and another with the 50 1.4 with iso set to 1600 or above for low light coverage.

Why i would choose the 17-35,

1. well.. it's the 17-35.... i'm sure you've heard enough rants and raves about this huge chunk of glass.
2. It won't fit my DCN (kodak) & moreover, I still use film for most of my assignments, B/W, etc... hence the 17-55's out of the qn.


Price wise, i would say that the 17-55's slightly more affordable than the 17-35, with used ones here going for around 700 - 900 usd. and the 17-35's going for 950 - 1200 usd. So hey, if that falls into your budget, and you dont' see yourself using film or investing in a FF kodak DCN, go for the 17-55...

Pragmatic advice there. :thumbsup:

 

[Tempus]

It appears that you have not posted on our forums in several weeks, so why not take a few moments to ask a question, help provide a solution or just engage in conversation with other members in our forums?

So here i am.


I got both of these lens.

I still prefer 17-55 because of the range. 20mm makes a lot of difference when you don't want to wet your shoes and get arrested by security guards for crossing the barrier.

Saying 17-35 is technically better is actually true but also depends on the way you use it.


Colors:
I find 17-55 colors are equally good now changing my initial opinion. if you take raw, 17-35 is better, but jpeg, it really depends on the body.

Distortion:
I managed to overcome 17-55 distortion but changing shooting style. 17-35 does have less distortion, but saying at 17mm, 17-35 to be void of it is not true. It's just slightly less than other lens because its an architectural lens.

Sharpness:
Same for both. But i find at f8, 17-35 performs better than 17-55. 17-55's sweet spot tends to be at f11. I find 17-35 f2.8 is slightly better than 17-55. But well photoshop CS is there for you to enhance to the equal standards.

Flare control:
Whoever say 17-35mm don't have flare probably hasn't used one before. Direct angle into the light will generate flares on ANY lens. 17-35 does have a better control but not to the extent that this advantage should be considered when buying it. My hand is a better flare control than all the lens.

Hope this helps! My take is to spend what you can and not over the budget. It took my quite a lot of effort to get both these lens and its pretty damaging to the pocket. So if you have the cash, go for 17-35, walk a little more and sometimes with wet shoes. If not, go for 17-55, its a digital lens, works very well with digital body, a little lighter with more zoom. Best thing about 17-55 for me is that it cost nearly 700 bucks lesser. That's a big difference.

 

[erictan8888]

thanks for all the advice.... really a very difficult choice.... hmm.....

that's always the headache when buying lens... expecially when there is no true clear winner....

 

[yyD70S]

In a difficult situation, you buy both...

 

[Errz]

thanks for all the advice.... really a very difficult choice.... hmm.....

that's always the headache when buying lens... expecially when there is no true clear winner....

u can always rent the lens to test it out. and thats where rebbot comes in. :bsmilie:
Think he got both lens. u might wanan check out with him.

 

[erictan8888]

went to test lens..... seems like the 17-35 has caught my fancy....
true, the thing lacking is the 20mm part of the zoom.... but pic quality wise, i find that 17-35mm looks more pleasing than the 17-55 in terms of bokeh and contrast and sharpness....

hmm.... seems like pocket is going to be lighter liao....