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

Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
58
Location
SLC, Utah
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!
 
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
425
Location
Glen Allen, Virginia
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.
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
22,474
Location
Richmond, Va
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
 
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
58
Location
SLC, Utah
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.
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
22,474
Location
Richmond, Va
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)
 
Joined
Mar 18, 2005
Messages
22,474
Location
Richmond, Va
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)
 
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
5,231
Location
USA
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!
 
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
5,231
Location
USA
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!
 
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Messages
729
Location
Douglasville, GA
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.
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom