Why so many people are selling their 17-55 DX at Buy/Sell Now?

[apprentice]

Stop being a bunch of wackos and keep beating a dead horse.

The fact is very simple. Once upon a time (and as of this post), Nikon still has not released a FF model.

The much-used range of yesteryear film shooters... 17-35 and 28-70

With new digital 1.5x FOVCF slrs, that focal length has become somewhat neither here nor there. Solution! DX 12-24 + 17-55. Effective 18-36 + 25.5-82.5 (ok, this is not an exact figure, there is some other factor taken into account during the crop factor conversion, but i cant rembr the maths.)

If you owned a 17-35 from back then, well and good for you If you don't and bought a 17-35 hoping for an affordable FF body to come, then good for you too If you bought a 17-55 thinking that you will never want an FF body even Nikon comes out with one, good for you too! But if you're letting go of your 17-55 thinking that it is lousy and useless once a FF body comes... best of luck to you. :bsmilie:

Couldn't have said it better myself...:thumbsup:

 

[kcuf2]

The much-used range of yesteryear film shooters... 17-35 and 28-70

With new digital 1.5x FOVCF slrs, that focal length has become somewhat neither here nor there. Solution! DX 12-24 + 17-55. Effective 18-36 + 25.5-82.5 (ok, this is not an exact figure, there is some other factor taken into account during the crop factor conversion, but i cant rembr the maths.)

If you owned a 17-35 from back then, well and good for you If you don't and bought a 17-35 hoping for an affordable FF body to come, then good for you too If you bought a 17-55 thinking that you will never want an FF body even Nikon comes out with one, good for you too! But if you're letting go of your 17-55 thinking that it is lousy and useless once a FF body comes... best of luck to you. :bsmilie:

basically u have tripped ur own tail over here. U have in fact made it even clearer that its redundant. U even supplemented my comments.
:thumbsup:

you are revolving around "what can be acheived using 17-55 already can be achieved with 17-35."

 

[kcuf2]

i supposed that a lens with nothing fascinating and with worse features has got nothing to do with being old or new - they described different things.

but kind of interested in which features are you refering to with regards to the above mentioned 17-35mm and 17-55mm models, and in what way worse.

u asked regarding "if an older lens is available, i should not consider a newer lens" In this case old lens = 17-35, new lens = 17-55. nothing to do with new features at all.

Features for both of the lens are roughly equivalent. both are AF-S, fixed length zoom, f2.8 etc etc. Image quality both are top notch etc. all of these u know already.

The feature that is worst, is of course it being a DX (which we have been saying all over and over again) and cant be used on the film cameras. And DX lens are supposed to be "Compact and lightweight " as quoted from nikon website, but its heavier.

If the 17-55 dun have the differentiating factor - VR, there is no need to produce 17-55 at all. yes VR is important even for short focal lengths.

 

[dDarkroom]

I sold mine 2 weeks ago for $1,200 cos I'm short of cash for ang pows.

 

[Yatlapball]

Nope. kcuf bro, you misunderstood my post. I did not say that the release of the 17-55 is redundant. And I really don't see how you can compare the 2 glass in terms of what it can achieve. The fact is this: 17-35 has less than half the zoom range of the 17-55.

If you read carefully, I am saying that the 2 glass serves 2 very different group of users and needs. Not that it is redundant.

A 17-35 on a film body and a APS-C body serves 2 totally different purposes (at least for me). Being only a hobbyist (or some may call equipment whore :bsmilie: :bsmilie: ), I had to make a choice as my pictures don't earn me money.

If you ask around.. actually many people kept the 17-35 and ALSO bought the 17-55. Two main reasons, 1) they still shoot film from time to time, but yet they also want the extra reach.. 2) it would save you a bundle of $ if/when nikon eventually goes FF. (a little bird whispered that Nikon will not forget its comittment to buyers of their glass...)

In keeping the 17-35 for use on the APS-C, you effectively have a gap at the short/mid tele. Unless you carry 2 bodies, zoom as fast as SWM with your feet, or you change glass faster than you can say boo, I think the 17-35 is a little lacking in range for event shooters.

Ok, in keeping to the spirit of the thread (lest Uncle PE shuts off this thread for OT), here's my take on the reason for the large number of 17-55 sales recently.

1) End year bonus and CNY Angbao spent unwisely. Bought the 17-55 and not optimising its use to the full potential. So sell.

2) Group of users mentioned above (those who bought both), letting go of the 17-55 in anticipation of FF. Canon has thrown down the gauntlet with 1DMkIII, so let's see what Nikon has to answer.

3) Income tax coming. Sell to raise money pay govt. :bsmilie:

 

[smalltiger]

I sold mine 2 weeks ago for $1,200 cos I'm short of cash for ang pows.

Wah guess your "Ang Pows" must b "Very Big":bigeyes: Liao :bsmilie:

 

[smalltiger]

If you ask around.. actually many people kept the 17-35 and ALSO bought the 17-55. Two main reasons, 1) they still shoot film from time to time, but yet they also want the extra reach.. 2) it would save you a bundle of $ if/when nikon eventually goes FF. (a little bird whispered that Nikon will not forget its comittment to buyers of their glass...)

I totally agree with you that y I keep both lens

 

[Lmodel]

And DX lens are supposed to be "Compact and lightweight " as quoted from nikon website, but its heavier.

I believed you can't compare it as in apple to orange.

One is a 17-35 while the other is a 17-55. I'm sure weight will be reduced if Nikon is to produce a 17-35 DX. But hey, isnt it a replica of the original 17-35 in terms of length? Then, people would start complaining that they rather get a lens that is as heavy as the 17-35 but with the extra 20mm zoom.

As in why people are selling their 17-55 DX, one man's meat is another man's poison. Equipment isnt all that matters (unless Nikon is indeed launching a FF) so why bother so much about which lens (or body) is better than which. Surely you've noticed that many are selling their D200 as well or will you be posting that there are some implications on this body as well?

I'd say rather than wasting time bothering about such issues, isnt it better to go out and shoot more with whatever we have and be contemplating with our own gears?

Cheers

 

[Dennis]

Way didn't known DX is obsolete liow. Leh long leh long all my DX lens. ;p
And all along I thought the 17-55 was the DX equivalent of 28-70 ???. :dunno:
The 17-35 equivalent should be the 12-24 ??
I bought into the Nikon system because they were the first with all the wides include FF FE for DX format and had been enjoying it since. :lovegrin:

 

[wazzup]

All this talk... all the excitement, but when a FF body comes out, how many is actually going to buy one?

Heh... The irony.

 

[zuikoku]

An indication to move to Canon ?

 

[Lmodel]

All this talk... all the excitement, but when a FF body comes out, how many is actually going to buy one?

Heh... The irony.

:bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

I doubt many will coz of the price range.

 

[JaPhotos]

...But if you're letting go of your 17-55 thinking that it is lousy and useless once a FF body comes... best of luck to you. :bsmilie:

ya. anyone in this category can sell me their dx lens. since you feel no value...i be good accept them from you at 10% of market price. hahaha. :bsmilie:

 

[blazer_workz]

Stop being a bunch of wackos and keep beating a dead horse.

The fact is very simple. Once upon a time (and as of this post), Nikon still has not released a FF model.

The much-used range of yesteryear film shooters... 17-35 and 28-70

With new digital 1.5x FOVCF slrs, that focal length has become somewhat neither here nor there. Solution! DX 12-24 + 17-55. Effective 18-36 + 25.5-82.5 (ok, this is not an exact figure, there is some other factor taken into account during the crop factor conversion, but i cant rembr the maths.)

If you owned a 17-35 from back then, well and good for you If you don't and bought a 17-35 hoping for an affordable FF body to come, then good for you too If you bought a 17-55 thinking that you will never want an FF body even Nikon comes out with one, good for you too! But if you're letting go of your 17-55 thinking that it is lousy and useless once a FF body comes... best of luck to you. :bsmilie:

Sorry abt the OT..just needed some clarifications..the focal range on DX lens still has to multiply by cropped factor mehz?? I always tot thats the 35mm equivalent..:think: and the multiplication of cropped factor only applies to non-DX lenses mounted on a body wif APS-C size sensor..

 

[Big Kahuna]

All this talk... all the excitement, but when a FF body comes out, how many is actually going to buy one?

Heh... The irony.

Actually I wish it stays at it is if not out of sudden my 17-35 became a widw angle liao....must BBB 28-70 again :bheart:

 

[piglet_oinkoink]

If you owned a 17-35 from back then, well and good for you If you don't and bought a 17-35 hoping for an affordable FF body to come, then good for you too If you bought a 17-55 thinking that you will never want an FF body even Nikon comes out with one, good for you too! But if you're letting go of your 17-55 thinking that it is lousy and useless once a FF body comes... best of luck to you.

Agreed. anyway.. we need people who enjoy buying new bodies/lens ~like changing hp esp when cannon/nikon release new bodies. World market has slowed down and we need such people to spend & spend.

 

[blazer_workz]

Actually I wish it stays at it is if not out of sudden my 17-35 became a widw angle liao....must BBB 28-70 again :bheart:

Too bad we are all staying in a technology driven economy..:cry:

Just like during the early days where those who believe religiously on film, felt that digital couldn't meet their expectations..but how many pro-photogs out there are still shooting film nowadays..i do believe sensors and image processors still have lots of room for evolution..it might even go beyond just the FF..

 

[jacob]

All this talk... all the excitement, but when a FF body comes out, how many is actually going to buy one?

Heh... The irony.

well said.

one question,.... do you enjoy 1.5 crop factor when you're shooting sports, birds, etc? same speed but higher zooms? am still enjoying 300mm at F2.8 tho. or better still 600mm at F2.8?

 

[blurrblurr]

I sold mine 2 weeks ago for $1,200 cos I'm short of cash for ang pows.

Think the one who buy it got your ang bao already.

 

[Dennis]

Agree 100% lah but again there are many "professional" here leh, will require the pro bodies to take pro photo mah. ;p

All this talk... all the excitement, but when a FF body comes out, how many is actually going to buy one?

Heh... The irony.