17-55 vs. 17-35

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by Beezle, Sep 21, 2005.

  1. So when I moved to the D2X, me and the 17-55 stopped getting along as well as we had on the D70. Focusing problems. I had a few with the D70, but I simply tweaked my D70 towards front focusing a little to make up for it.

    This ended up with my swapping the DX for a 28-70.

    Now I am wanting something for the wide end again. I also am finding that I miss the 17-55's image quality. The 28-70 is of course a great lens, but I just prefer the images the DX made, regardless of the problems I had with it. I do like the landscape stuff I have done with the 28-70, but closer in not as much.

    At the moment I am thinking either the 17-35 or buying another 17-55, and hoping to find one that behaves better or just learning to make it work for me. The DX has a more useful range, but if the 35 is its equal or better in image quality I would probably go for that. I think that the 35 is a FF lens could matter in a few years, but that's the last thing priority wise.

    Use would tend to be 70% close to medium range, usually with people and 30% general landscape use. I had considered the various 12-24s, but I don't think I would find that range very useful.

    If anyone could comment on these two, particularly with regards image quality, I would appreciate it.

  2. for what it is worth, my 17-55 has been flawless and is used a lot on my D2X. I can not imagine not having this lens in my bag. I purchased my 17-55 in Jan 2005, well before I got my D2X, to give you an idea of production dates.
  3. Ed,

    I have the 17-35, 28-70, 70-200 and find that each performs beyond my expectations on the D2x. I also like the idea that each will work 100% on a full-frame body.

    One other benifit of the 17-35 is that they do not command the resale price of the now-popular 17-55 so you could probably get a great deal on a used one... from someone on this very site.

  4. I just got the 17-35 and it "solved" any problems that my D70 was having with underexposoure. Unless I screw something up or try something radically different then the pictures come out with amazing clarityand sharpness. Another bonus that I found out the 17-35 will focus just about 4-5 inches in front of the lens. Macro wide angle anybody? It is a vast improvement over my 18-70 lit lens. Next step will be the 28-70 for me.

    I must admit that I will probably be getting an F100 or something similar so I can use some film and also have the wide angle. I don't think you can go wrong with the 17-35.
  5. The 17-35 is a great lens and I deeply regret I sold it last christmas attached to my ol' D1x (that was my crime...).

    The 12-24s is a great landscape lens, a bit strongminded on the focusing, but once you take control it will be a great companion even if used at 24mm.
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 22, 2005