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!

17-55 vs 17-35?

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by VoidRaven, Jul 31, 2007.

  1. VoidRaven


    Jul 13, 2006
    Lagrange, OH
    So after much debate and drooling over the B&H catalog I came to the conclusion that instead of pulling the trigger on a Tokina 12-24 I was going to sequester funds away, despite the fact it will take many months to do so, and go for something a bit better for my use. I determined that I really didn't need the UWA that the 12-24 offers so I turned my sights to something in the "pro glass" catagory to handle WA to "standard" range...hence the 17-55 or 17-35.

    So which to choose? The 17-55G is appealing (if only I could find one without the "G"...do they make it?) as the zoom range is a smidge longer and it would put me in a good position that if I wanted to only haul two lenses I could take the 17-55 and 80-200 and have fine glass all around....leaving the 28-105 and 50 prime at home.

    The 17-35 seems to also have a moderately decent range, is not a "G" lens, but would leave me with a sizable gap in ranges should I decide to only pack a two lens kit.

    Aside from all that, are there any other major drawbacks? I know both lenses are very sharp, fast (2.8), and can produce stunning images, but what are the complaints/drawbacks about these lenses that the marketers don't tell you???
  2. Good questions Don. I'll be watching this as my next purchase will likely be one of those two lenses.

    I've really been thinking about picking up a film body (possibly F100) and if I did so, my obvious choice should then be the 17-35. It's also a possibility that IF Nikon ever comes out with a FF sensor that I'd be interested in going that route... Again, the 17-35 would be the better choice. Who knows if that will ever happen though. This "argument" might just end up being moot.

    If you're really interested in the non-G 17-35, maybe look at your shots to determine how often you really shoot in the range between 35-80mm to see if it would truly be an issue.
  3. mood


    Jun 27, 2007
    So Fla
    I also struggled thiinking about the same 2 lenses
    ultimately, today as a matter of fact, I ordered the 17-55
    just think the extra 20mm would be more useful
    when and if Nikon comes with the "FF" , it will be out of my price range anyway
  4. This question comes up all the time here it seems. I own the 17-55 and it's color and sharpness rival my primes. Best piece of glass I've ever owned.
  5. I think the 17-35 shouldn't be ruled out too quickly, sure... it doesn't have the reach, but it has the full frame and leverage to take it's opponent to the ground quickly, and let's face it, that's where most fights end anyway.:smile:
  6. VoidRaven


    Jul 13, 2006
    Lagrange, OH
    Very interesting points all around. With my 28-105 I frequently find myself in the 28-80 range, mostly for parades (small towns, two lane roads, everyone right up on the curb) and tight spaces (rooms in houses, stalls in barns, etc). Hence why I know the 17 end will be just fine for what I need. The trick is either 35 or 55.

    What I want to AVOID is then having to buy another lens to fill the gap between X and Y. (like between 35 and 80....with 55 I really don't have to fill that gap.....or at least not for a *while*).

    But I would prefer to have all my lenses keep that aperature ring...helps with resale value later especially if a FF body ever arrives.

    Hmm....what a conundrum. At least I have time while I save up for one of these lenses!
  7. Do a search. There was a VERYYYYYY long thread about these two lenses just about a week ago.
  8. ckdamascus


    May 14, 2005
    New Jersey
    From what I hear

    17-35/2.8 not as good wide open, but less distortion and good when stopped down. Ideal for landscapes and it is full-frame.

    17-55/2.8 better wide open, lighter, but G and DX.
  9. gadgetguy11


    Nov 16, 2005
  10. VoidRaven


    Jul 13, 2006
    Lagrange, OH
    Thanks very much everyone. I've been reading every thread about these two lenses that I can come across and I think I've reached a conclusion....

    ....I'm gonna need to win the lottery or have a very wealthy relative kick-off and inherit a bunch of money and just buy them all!!! This is supposed to be an *easy* decision! LOL!
  11. Jonathan P.

    Jonathan P.

    Jul 10, 2007
    Let me put it this way:

    I used to own both lenses. Now, I just own the 17-55mm f/2.8.
  12. hehe.... Let me put it this way. I've owned both lenses. Now, I just own the 17-35.

    (We're not much help are we...)
  13. VoidRaven


    Jul 13, 2006
    Lagrange, OH
    LOL! No, sadly, you are not much help.....but in a good way I guess!
  14. Chris101


    Feb 2, 2005
    I can see the advantage for anyone with an older body, but surely any new body will be G compatible, right?
  15. Doug


    Jan 17, 2006
    East TN
    Isn't there a long thread about this almost every week?

    Let me put it to you this way. I used to own both lenses, and I still own both lenses, hahaha.

    I know that helped a lot.
  16. ha, well I have never owned either of these 2 lenses but I would love to own both!

    Actually I am in the same dilemma. I am in the market for a new lens, already passed the house appropriations committee and will buy one very soon just need to decide if I want the 17-35, 17-55 or 28-70. I'm leaning towards the 28-70 but then again that changes about every 4 hours.
  17. I was in a similar dilemma. I have a 28-70/2.8 and find myself missing the 17-27mm range quite often. So I have considered the 17-35 to complement the 28-70. But at the end, I've chosen the 17-55 because I do not want to switch lens while I am on the field shooting cycling races. So for me, the convenience has been an important factor in my decision.
  18. Well i owned the 17-35/2,8 (sold it yesterday) and i would never consider the 17-55/,8 does that help!?:biggrin::biggrin:
  19. fjgindy


    Jan 21, 2007

    How come (on both)?
  20. VoidRaven


    Jul 13, 2006
    Lagrange, OH

    Why would you never consider the 17-55? It's *that* kind of info I'm looking for. What's your reasoning?

    Chris101.....I guess that's a good point. One would hope all future bodies will be "G" compatible. I guess my thought came from the fact that it is a DX lens and I didn't think that DX lenses would work on a FF body. Hence if I ever decided to upgrade to a FF body later (I'm REALLY dreaming big here) I wouldn't get full effectiveness from the lens......or maybe I'm completely mistaken. Wouldn't be the first time!
  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.