17-35mm versus 17-55mm

[Yatlapball]

As the 17-55mm is a DX lense, so it will give me a true angle of 17 to 55mm but if i were to get the 17-35mm i would get an angle of 25.5-52.4mm.

That is a less than correct understanding of what DX means.

You still need to factor in the 1.5x FOVCF for your DX lenses.

i.e. both the 17-55 and 17-35 would start from a "relative focal length" of 25.5mm ...

 

[zen-eet-ram]

I was in the same position when I bought 17-35mm for my D200.
If you are thinking of uprading to FF in future get the 17-35.
But if you will stay with APS size DSLR better get the 17-55.

My D200 is 10MP (while your D2X is 12MP) and I ony print max size of 8R.
I can still crop my images until 5MP (or sometimes even lower).

just my 2cents...

 

[Minus070]

Something about the crop factor. You are not getthing more zoom from a smaller sensor. Just smaller image that all.

Check this website.
http://www.millhouse.nl/digitalcropfactorframe.html

 

[pigs_can_fly]

Hi Nikonas,

What is my concern like my friends have ask me, wide angle or quality. hmm tough questions.

If you intend to do large prints or sell your images, quality is important. And you will also need to know how to shoot at the "best settings" to give the best resolution with the lense.

If you intend to use it as a walk-around and print only 4R or on the web site, I guess any lense will do.

 

[smalltiger]

I have both lens but I use the 17mm-55mm:thumbsup: more as I shoot events I need the ext 20mm as some event doesn't aloud you to move forward:bsmilie: Go for the 17mm-55mm:thumbsup:

 

[lsisaxon]

As the 17-55mm is a DX lense, so it will give me a true angle of 17 to 55mm but if i were to get the 17-35mm i would get an angle of 25.5-52.4mm. Hmm that makes me hard to decide as ppl told me that 17-35mm wouldn't be a wide angle zoom lense if its going to use on the D2X because of the 1.5 crop factor, but on the under hand its a legendary lense because of its sharpness & quality that every Nikon fan would love to get one over the 17-55mm.

That's a wrong understanding of DX lenses. It just means that the image circle is reduced. The focal length is the actual focal length. The field of view is still subjected to the FOV crop.

17-55/2.8DX
http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/lens/af/dx/af-s_dx_zoom17-55mmf_28g_if/index.htm
Picture angle

79° - 28°50'

17-35/2.8
http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/lens/af/zoom/af-s_zoom17-35mmf_28d_if/index.htm
Picture angle

104° - 62° [79° - 44° with Nikon digital cameras (Nikon DX format)]

 

[Hobbes234]

I chose 17-55.
17-55 + few steps = 17-70 F2.8 (17-35 + 28-70) F2.8 ;p

 

[westwest2]

I have both lens but I use the 17mm-55mm:thumbsup: more as I shoot events I need the ext 20mm as some event doesn't aloud you to move forward:bsmilie: Go for the 17mm-55mm:thumbsup:

this i agree with you...but if quality and build is a factor...17-35 is the choice...will turn look back once u get it...

 

[snowspeeder]

Get 17-35 & 28-70. Problem solved. :thumbsup:

 

[philip827]

I bought the 17-35 instead.

If you are going to travel, you should consider nikon 12-24. Not sure about your shooting preference, but i found myself shooting at the 17mm end most of the time.

 

[skopio]

let's try a more retrospective approach.
what do you shoot more? events/streets or landscapes/cityscapes?

the 17-55 is more suited for the former while the 17-35 for the latter.

then you ask, why not just get the bigger zoom? from what i've read about both lenses 17-35 seems better when focused at infinity (for landscapes). you might want to check that out.

do note that the resolution of both lenses drops at the long end of their zoom range (if it affects you).
AND there are other factors like CA, light fall-off, flaring, ghosting, etc.

maybe you might wana check out these sites:

http://photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html
http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showcat.php/cat/13

of course, YMMV.

 

[lsisaxon]

let's try a more retrospective approach.
what do you shoot more? events/streets or landscapes/cityscapes?

the 17-55 is more suited for the former while the 17-35 for the latter.

then you ask, why not just get the bigger zoom? from what i've read about both lenses 17-35 seems better when focused at infinity (for landscapes). you might want to check that out.

do note that the resolution of both lenses drops at the long end of their zoom range (if it affects you).
AND there are other factors like CA, light fall-off, flaring, ghosting, etc.

maybe you might wana check out these sites:

http://photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html
http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2.html
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showcat.php/cat/13

of course, YMMV.

Just have to remember that the trinity lenses existed before DX. 17-35 is meant to be an ultra-wideangle zoom, 28-70 is meant to be a versatile wide to medium-tele normal zoom and 70-200 is meant to be a tele zoom.

When DX came in, because of the crop factor, the versatile 28-70 is not longer that versatile if used on a DX body because it would become a medium-tele zoom instead. Thus, 17-55DX is meant to address this gap. It was never meant to compete with the 17-35 which is supposed to be an ultra-wideangle zoom for 135 format. The 12-24DX is supposed to address the ultra-wide zoom needs for DX.

 

[Big Kahuna]

Considering the ~$2.3k price tag, better safe than sorry so eventually I bought the AFS 17-35 :lovegrin: This one is official Trinity lens so it cannot be so wrong :sweatsm:

 

[lsisaxon]

Considering the ~$2.3k price tag, better safe than sorry so eventually I bought the AFS 17-35 :lovegrin: This one is official Trinity lens so it cannot be so wrong :sweatsm:

Plus we don't know if DX is just Nikon's stopgap solution.

 

[Cheesecake]

Plus we don't know if DX is just Nikon's stopgap solution.

it is. :bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

 

[huggable]

Oh no! Soon there might be lots of DX lenses for sale?

 

[surflim]

That's a wrong understanding of DX lenses. It just means that the image circle is reduced. The focal length is the actual focal length. The field of view is still subjected to the FOV crop.

17-55/2.8DX
http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/lens/af/dx/af-s_dx_zoom17-55mmf_28g_if/index.htm
Picture angle

79° - 28°50'

17-35/2.8
http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/lens/af/zoom/af-s_zoom17-35mmf_28d_if/index.htm
Picture angle

104° - 62° [79° - 44° with Nikon digital cameras (Nikon DX format)]

Yatlapball & Isisaxon,

Thanks! Got confuse from the DX, always thought that they give a true range that is describe on the DX lenses.

Just got some chat with Max the technical person of Nikon, he say that the DX lense is what you have mention. Thanks alot for making me to understand more on the DX lenses.


Oh i did check about the quality of this 2 lenses with Max, he told me that actually they did a test on both lenses, they actually find that the DX 17-55mm produce a slightly sharper image than the 17-35 on a DSLR taken on a high resolution (8meg or more) .

The reason he gives is because of the DX lense is custom make to allow image to fall nicely on the 1.5x crop sensor of Nikon. where as the 17-35mm is meant more for the size of a 35mm sensor(maybe in the future) or film.

On the test they did is, take a picture from both lenses of a black text on a flat white surface, when they did a 100% crop of the image there is some slight quality different.

Actually i did some test of the 17-35mm on 2-3 different aperture & ISO from Nikon Customer service ctr. Sad to say they doesn't have a 17-55mm to test.

 

[Cheesecake]

Oh no! Soon there might be lots of DX lenses for sale?

depends... on usage! :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

 

[lsisaxon]

Yatlapball & Isisaxon,

Thanks! Got confuse from the DX, always thought that they give a true range that is describe on the DX lenses.

Just got some chat with Max the technical person of Nikon, he say that the DX lense is what you have mention. Thanks alot for making me to understand more on the DX lenses.


Oh i did check about the quality of this 2 lenses with Max, he told me that actually they did a test on both lenses, they actually find that the DX 17-55mm produce a slightly sharper image than the 17-35 on a DSLR taken on a high resolution (8meg or more) .

The reason he gives is because of the DX lense is custom make to allow image to fall nicely on the 1.5x crop sensor of Nikon. where as the 17-35mm is meant more for the size of a 35mm sensor(maybe in the future) or film.

On the test they did is, take a picture from both lenses of a black text on a flat white surface, when they did a 100% crop of the image there is some slight quality different.

Actually i did some test of the 17-35mm on 2-3 different aperture & ISO from Nikon Customer service ctr. Sad to say they doesn't have a 17-55mm to test.

Actually they don't have to test it this way. The MTF chart already tells this information. But people still rave about the 17-35 and claim it to be better than the 17-55 because it's 1) a 'trinity' lens, 2) a full frame 135 format lens, 3) bokeh is slightly better because the coma is not as well corrected as the 17-55 over the DX coverage.

I would not compare these two lenses side by side because I think it's pointless. The quality is about the same, just that one is optimised for full frame ultrawide and the other is optimised for DX as a 'substitute' for the very versatile 28-70 range that film shooters are very famiiar with.

 

[lsisaxon]

Oh no! Soon there might be lots of DX lenses for sale?

Maybe, maybe not.. I would think that digital FF bodies would still have a DX crop mode like D2Xs high speed crop mode which allows DX lenses to be used. The resolution of the sensors would be so high that even with the DX crop mode, it will still be >10mp, which is almost the optical limits for DX already.