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

[Cschend]

Can anyone tell me how these compare to each other? Is there a difference in image quality? performance?

I am leaning towards the 17-55mm because of the extra range and it is slightly less expensive. Is there any reason I should be considering the 17-35 instead?

Thanks for your help!

 

[yahtzee]

Can anyone tell me how these compare to each other? Is there a difference in image quality? performance?

I am leaning towards the 17-55mm because of the extra range and it is slightly less expensive. Is there any reason I should be considering the 17-35 instead?

Thanks for your help!

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

 

[dmwphoto]

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

 

[Cschend]

Landscapes are precisely what I want to do with one of these lenses. Is the 17-35 really that much better for landscapes? What makes it better? I have more than enough lenses now for portrait work, but the versatility of the longer range is always nice. I also plan on adding a 12-24 to my bag one of these days.

 

[dmwphoto]

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

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[dmwphoto]

a couple of more samples

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Ottrott's Human]

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!

 

[dmwphoto]

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

 

[Ottrott's Human]

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!

 

[Stephen Hopkins]

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.