17-35mm f/2.8 or 17-55mm f/2.8?

Im sure the 17-35 is a great lens but I agree - the extra range is nice to have. I absolutely love mine.

 

Christine
Both are very high quality lenses. They tend to draw different followings based on use. A large group (including myself) love the 17-35 for landscape imaging as that is what we enjoy the most and it excels in that area. Another large group loves the 17-55 for it's versatility and image quality and they tend more towards people images with it.
I have owned them both and have found them both to be great. I sold the 17-55 and kept the 17-35, later added a 28-70 to compliment it. You can not go wrong between these two really. They both hold great resale value if your desires should change.
Dave

 

I think corner to corner sharpness and lack of barrel distortion are two of it's main claims to fame

 

a couple of more samples

 

Great examples Dave.......beautiful landscape work. I need to get out more and use my 17-35. I've had it a few months and have used it twice. I think I'll make a real effort to try and get better at landscape work this spring and summer. Your photo's are very encouraging!

 

Stu
This is the time of year to make use of it and with your skills and eye, I look forward to the results.

 

Thanks Dave....I'm afraid my eye leans towards shooting people.......not overly versatile....... but I am looking forward to trying some landscapes and seeing if I can gradually expand my repertoire. Mighty nice of you to say!

 

I think one of the main reasons the 17-35mm retains so much edge sharpness and lacks any visible distortion is because it's a full frame lens. While the lens exhibits these issues in EXTREMELY minor ways on full-frame they disappear on a DX sensor.

This attribute is one I exploit to a lesser degree on a much less expensive lens, the Sigma 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5... which shows noticeable distortion
and edge softness at 15mm on full frame while both tighten up quite nicely on a DX sensor.