Nikon 17-35 or 17-55?
- Thread starter Shak
- Start date
- Messages
- 6,776
- Name
- Andy Drake
- Edit My Images
- Yes
This are complete differences lenses for different purposes.
The 17-55 f/2.8 is a razor sharp wide open, but not quite as good stopped down.
The 17-35 f/2.8 isn't that good wide open, but ideal for f/8, f/11 landscape shooting. Its also full frame.
I don't really know how you go from 50mm f/1.4 to either of these lenses though, and the 17-35 isn't near in any way at all?
There are rarely issues with lenses, just issues with users, both will take great shots if you know what you are doing
I currently have a Nikkor 17-35.
The 17-55 f/2.8 is a razor sharp wide open, but not quite as good stopped down.
The 17-35 f/2.8 isn't that good wide open, but ideal for f/8, f/11 landscape shooting. Its also full frame.
I don't really know how you go from 50mm f/1.4 to either of these lenses though, and the 17-35 isn't near in any way at all?
There are rarely issues with lenses, just issues with users, both will take great shots if you know what you are doing
I currently have a Nikkor 17-35.
Joe T
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 15,801
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have a 17-55 2.8 and I really like it. Sure it's a heavy old b****r but the IQ is excellent. The 17-55 is a newer lens and is designed for DX sensors only. The 17-35 is older and also works on full frame.
This is only hearsay, but I've heard that the 17-55 works better on digital (I think cos of the special coatings they put on for digital).
HTH.
This is only hearsay, but I've heard that the 17-55 works better on digital (I think cos of the special coatings they put on for digital).
HTH.
- Messages
- 6,776
- Name
- Andy Drake
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think the 17-35 has come into its own again on full frame.
For DX shooters, the 17-55 is by far the better choice. Its the sort of lens you can shoot all day wide open, and you only stop down for more depth of field, never for sharpness.
The 17-35 doesn't really get really sharp until about f/5.6, but its edge to edge then, even on full frame.
Really different animals IMHO.
For DX shooters, the 17-55 is by far the better choice. Its the sort of lens you can shoot all day wide open, and you only stop down for more depth of field, never for sharpness.
The 17-35 doesn't really get really sharp until about f/5.6, but its edge to edge then, even on full frame.
Really different animals IMHO.
- Messages
- 6,776
- Name
- Andy Drake
- Edit My Images
- Yes
As he has a D300 according to his Sig I'd go for the 17-55 in his case 
Joe T
TPer Emeritus
- Messages
- 15,801
- Edit My Images
- Yes
As he has a D300 according to his Sig I'd go for the 17-55 in his case
Agreed.
However, I think he mentioned in another thread he was considering upgrading to a D700! The plot thickens.....
OP
- Messages
- 833
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Agreed.
However, I think he mentioned in another thread he was considering upgrading to a D700! The plot thickens.....
Lol it does enter my mind but the extra good few hundred pounds I'd need (after selling the D300) could go towards a **** hot lens, or the new Wacom Cintiq graphics tablet that I want!
SimonTALM
Linford Christie
- Messages
- 3,268
- Name
- Simon
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I don't have either, but my thoughts on the whole lens thing is that as lenses last for years and with FF cameras slowly creeping in everywhere (except Olympus) all the lenses I buy from now on will be FF compatible which means when I finally move to FF I won't find all my lenses need replacing making the step up very expensive. I really doubt most people could spot a picture taken on the 17-55 from one taken on the 17-35 (they're both pro quality lenses after all).
- Messages
- 6,776
- Name
- Andy Drake
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I really doubt most people could spot a picture taken on the 17-55 from one taken on the 17-35 (they're both pro quality lenses after all).
I could. But I know what to look for.
Both are excellent, but the optical characterstics are quite different.
I could. But I know what to look for.
Both are excellent, but the optical characterstics are quite different.
OP
- Messages
- 833
- Edit My Images
- Yes
:bang::shrug:
- Messages
- 6,776
- Name
- Andy Drake
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have no idea why I just did that.
The lenses have two characteristics that are very different - edge sharpness and wide open sharpness.
If you shoot wide open with both lenses at 35mm, the 17-55 will be sharper, and more contrast-y.
At the wider end, the 17-35 has significantly sharper edges - a its a full frame lens so benefits from the "DX sweet point" on DX camera and it suffers from less field curvature than the 17-55 (there are websites dedicated on how to focus this lens when shooting wide)
If I had to summarise, I'd say the 17-55 was more geared towards event shooters / PJs due to its blistering wide open sharpness, while the 17-35 is more suited towards landscape / architecture. Thats not to say either won't do the others job off course
- Messages
- 11,513
- Name
- Stewart
- Edit My Images
- Yes
OK, it's a shameless plug, but we have both of them at LensesForHire if you want to take a test drive before you splash the cash. Take your own test shots and see wheteher you can tell the difference!
Nikon AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8 D IF-ED
Nikon AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 G IF-ED
Nikon AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8 D IF-ED
Nikon AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 G IF-ED
- Messages
- 2,777
- Name
- Drake
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I've got a D300 paired with a 17-55. Excellent, versatile combo. Here's a landscape taken with the setup last July in Glacier National Park.
and a 3 shot pano shot with the same kit.
and, finally, a shot of my sibs before we headed out on a long day hike.
and a 3 shot pano shot with the same kit.
and, finally, a shot of my sibs before we headed out on a long day hike.