17-35mm versus 17-55mm

[surflim]

not really. :lovegrin:

Sincerely speaking as a Nikon user, am using a D2X i'm totally really impress & hats-off on Canon 5D & 1Ds MKII. The FF is amazing. Just look at their ISO control. Very well deserve a compliment on it.


In the end i chosen a 17-35mm over 17-55mm because 1 day soon Nikon will come out with a FF DSLR.

same story as here http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=292170&highlight=surflim

 

[huggable]

But then again, DX lenses can still be used for FF, just that certain focal range (at the short and long extreme) will have vignetting.

 

[surflim]

But then again, DX lenses can still be used for FF, just that certain focal range (at the short and long extreme) will have vignetting.

Can lah, but it defeat the purpose. Is like you bought a 32inch LCD TV but it only can display 24inch. But you are still paying the price of a 32inch. Sorry probably this is an bad example, but the theory is something like that.

 

[snowman]

hi guy, like to pop in a question. just got my 28-70mm 2.8 recently, thinking of getting 17-35mm or 17-55. after much reading on this threat. felt that 17-55mm seem better for me (d200) but still like some great advise from you guys thxs

 

[novello76]

I agree with skopio..if its coverage of events is impt to you..get the 17-55..2 steps in events is quite impt..esp where you dont want to go too close to the subject..(i.e. 35mm vs 55mm)

 

[surflim]

Dear All,


After much advises & expertise from the Nikonas! Thank you so much!! i have decided on the 17-35mm. Like what you all have say "Depends on your usage" which i believe is true. The reason i chose 17-35 is

1) Quality & Build
2) To still use on my F80
3) For our future FF Nikon DSLR
4) D lense for my FM2

What i see the debate on this two lense is "which is better quality". I have tested out both lense. Both is Very Good.

I would have chose the 17-55mm if its not a DX lense. because of the extra "mileage" given.

I have been hearing that 17-55mm have alot of ghosting & flare. To my experience i have not really seen it.

 

[Yatlapball]

Never experienced ghosting/flare problems on the 17-55. At any rate... Position yourself carefully and you won't face such things to begin with.

Since you have thought of using it on your older film cameras... Then without a doubt, your choice is the right one. Heh.

Would have gotten a 17-35 too if I had started dabbling in film back then. Oh well. Heh.

 

[surflim]

Never experienced ghosting/flare problems on the 17-55. At any rate... Position yourself carefully and you won't face such things to begin with.

Since you have thought of using it on your older film cameras... Then without a doubt, your choice is the right one. Heh.

Would have gotten a 17-35 too if I had started dabbling in film back then. Oh well. Heh.

True, some ppl say that 17-35mm have better control of ghosting and flare, i don't know about that. What i know is i don't think any lense can avoid flare, thats where y Nikon have provide a BIG hood for 17-55mm

 

[Yatlapball]

Good morning Speaking of hoods... I've got a thing for them. Heh. They serve as very good front element protectors :bsmilie:

snowman: Then your 28-70 might be "wasted" in a sense. What are your needs? Since you already own a 28-70, I think getting a 17-35 would make more sense. But if you really need that extra 20mm of reach... then by all means get a 17-55.

 

[surflim]

Good morning Speaking of hoods... I've got a thing for them. Heh. They serve as very good front element protectors :bsmilie:

snowman: Then your 28-70 might be "wasted" in a sense. What are your needs? Since you already own a 28-70, I think getting a 17-35 would make more sense. But if you really need that extra 20mm of reach... then by all means get a 17-55.

Good Morning to you and all! ya man, i have very bad experience when i carry my camera & the mounted lense without esp in a busy street like Chinatown during the CNY. knocks & Finger print all around, thats why i have always mounted the hood along even in night shoot

 

[Atlas]

I vote for 17-35. One thing i don't like about 17-55 is that the extension when the camera is trying to zoom in from 17 to 55. It seem to suck in air which might get dust in .

 

[photographique]

17-35mm f/2.8 is the best 17-35 range lens in the world, and so is the 28-70mm f/2.8.

"Works on 35mm. Yep, you can use it as an 26-55mm zoom on your full frame or 35mm bodies, though almost any filter will still vignette at 28mm." ???!!!

From http://www.bythom.com/1755lens.htm

 

[surflim]

Images Sample that i have taken from nikon CS Centre with a 17-35mm f/2.8/17mm/iso 100/ 1/80sec/

100% Crop

17-35mm f/5.6/17mm/iso 100/ 1/125sec/

100% Crop

Remarkably sharp

 

[lsisaxon]

17-35mm f/2.8 is the best 17-35 range lens in the world, and so is the 28-70mm f/2.8.

"Works on 35mm. Yep, you can use it as an 26-55mm zoom on your full frame or 35mm bodies, though almost any filter will still vignette at 28mm." ???!!!

From http://www.bythom.com/1755lens.htm

You refering to 17-35 or 17-55DX?

 

[glennyong]

with 17-35. u cannot go wrong one la...

time to get a trinity.

MTL BBB !!​

:devil: :devil:​

 

[lsisaxon]

Images Sample that i have taken from nikon CS Centre with a 17-35mm f/2.8/17mm/iso 100/ 1/80sec/

http://surflim.no-ip.biz/mynikon/for http/samples/_D2X2222.jpg

100% Crop

http://surflim.no-ip.biz/mynikon/for http/samples/_D2X2222_crop.jpg




17-35mm f/5.6/17mm/iso 100/ 1/125sec/

http://surflim.no-ip.biz/mynikon/for http/samples/_D2X2275.jpg

100% Crop

http://surflim.no-ip.biz/mynikon/for http/samples/_D2X2275_crop.jpg

Remarkably sharp

The 17-55 is very sharp also.

17-55/2.8@17mm f/2.8

17-55/2.8@17mm f/2.8 centre crop

 

[skopio]

wow, didn't know this thread is still going and going despite TS having already bought his lens!

2) To still use on my F80
3) For our future FF Nikon DSLR
4) D lense for my FM2

IMHO, there was no reason to choose the 17-55. why cripple your film SLRs with the 17-55?
good choice in the end.

 

[Liew]

years ago i was having doubt to get either of these lenses. finally, i bought the 17-35

here's some of the my observations regarding this two lenses i thought everyone might want to know.
1) the 17-55 is not 'wider'. the distortion characteristics of this lens made it look wider
2) the 17-55 has better center sharpness but when it comes to corner to corner sharpness, the 17-35 is the lens for it. though i must say it's not that sharp but it's the sharpest zoom lens in the range. (sharpness is relative)
3) the extending front element of the 17-55 disgust me. so is the 28-70. i think it is quite ridiculous.
4) it takes a while to get used to the short range of the 17-35. the additional 20mm could give an edge at times but you can crop it if you like.
5) the build of both lenses is completely different. yes, they are both like tanks but the 17-35 has the classic nikon build.
6) the 17-55 looks so good. it's like going out with a really sexy partner.
7) the 17-55 has a weather seal mount (i think) but the 17-35 has nothing.
8) the 17-35 has fantastic colour rendition.
9) focusing of the 17-35 tend to give funny squeaking sounds after a while. i have no clue why, some said the AF is gonna give way but i've been using mine extensively for years and it's still working. NSC refuse to take mine in cause they said there isn't any problem.

 

[lsisaxon]

9) focusing of the 17-35 tend to give funny squeaking sounds after a while. i have no clue why, some said the AF is gonna give way but i've been using mine extensively for years and it's still working. NSC refuse to take mine in cause they said there isn't any problem.

Your dry cabinet too dry?