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 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
  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.