1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

17-35 v/s 20-35

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by stamp22, Oct 2, 2008.

  1. stamp22


    Mar 15, 2008
    Los Angeles
    How come 17-35 f/2.8 is so expansive compare to 20-35 f/2.8 (found on keh for $700,$570).

    Is the 3mm from 17 to 20 worth that much ????
  2. AviSys


    Mar 31, 2008
    Placitas, NM
  3. Both lenses are solid built, high quality lenses. I like both of these lenses.
    The 20-35 was discontinued 5 years ago and has lost some value from being discontinued. It is an AF-D lens and uses the cameras focusing to focus. The focus is somewhat slow and a little noisy.
    The 17-35 is an AF-S lens, using an internal silent wave motor within the lens to focus. Fast and super quiet focusing. This lens is still available new and unused, allowing the value to stay high.
  4. wgilles


    Apr 25, 2008
  5. cr2596


    Aug 20, 2008
    Baton Rouge, LA
    How much do the 20-35mm's usually run used?
  6. On a DX body it probably is - on FX possibly not. The 20-35 is a very good lens. Good enough that I have not replaced it with the 17-35. I did some shots today with it and my MF 24 f2, 28 f2, and 35 f1.4. The 20-35 came off very well relative to the primes. The only one that was clearly sharper was the 35 f1.4.
  7. Depends on what you shoot. Those 3mm are worth it for me.
  8. stamp22


    Mar 15, 2008
    Los Angeles
    According to keh.com EX: $700, BGN: $570.
  9. Around 600 for a clean lens.........


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.