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!

Crazy to trade a 17-55mm for a 17-35mm

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by icetraxx, Apr 11, 2007.

  1. icetraxx


    May 7, 2005
    I'm debating about trading my 17-55mm for a 17-35mm or a 12-24mm? I know that there is the DX factor an the longer focal length. I am just finding that I need the 28-70mm focal length more and more. I also need the wide end too sometimes. I am thinking about trading for another wide and picking up the beast. I am just wondering others thoughts.
  2. Well, not long ago, I added the 12-24 to my 17-55 & 70-200VR. All in all, I'm set and happy with the setup. I don't miss anything in the 55-70 range at all, but then again, all depends what you're shooting.
  3. dsp921


    May 16, 2006
    I'd do it. The 17-35mm, 28-70mm and 70-200mm make a pretty great combination. Covers a big range, minimal overlap and they are all top performers. I'd get the 17-35mm over the 12-24mm because the 12-24mm is an f/4 and I'm hooked on the f/2.8 stuff and it's also a DX and I want the option of shooting film and/or full frame digital. That's just me, though.
  4. kwork


    Jun 8, 2006
    For a while I have felt that my ultimate 3 lens zoom kit would consist of a 12-24, 28-70, and 70-200VR
    Minimal overlap, but some people really tout the 17-35 as a beautiful landscape lens so I remain confused. I guess I'll just have to try them out and see what suits by style the best.
    Right now, I'm not even considering the full-frame vs DX debate since I have a D-50.
    I don't think anyone on here will say that the 17-55, 17-35, or 28-70 are bad lenses in any way. Just personal preference
  5. JayR


    Jul 6, 2005
    Redmond, WA.
    Hi Larry,

    I am thinking of going the other way from a 12-24 to a 17-55 as I almost never use the 12-24 and would prefer the 17-55 as a general purpose lens. Let me know if you are interested in a trade and we can discuss.

  6. I've had the 12-24, the 17-35 and the 28-70. I sold the 17-35 and don't miss it. I use the wides for outside so the f/4 of the 12-24 is fine. The 17-55 also would not suite my needs well either; overlap. I have the 28/f1.4 and 50/f1.2 for those rare situations when I need all the speed I can get.

  7. icetraxx


    May 7, 2005
    Thanks for the responses.

    Jay, I'll let you know if I decide to go the 12-24 route.

    Rich, I had the 28mm F1.4 but the use didn't justify the funds so I sold it. I have been thinking about picking up the 50mm f1.2 and possibly the 35mm 1.4 also. I have never shot manual focus which is the reason I haven't gotten either.

    I am going to be doing a lot of shooting this weekend in all the areas that I normally shoot. So I'm going to do some field testing to determine what I am missing/need for my kit.

  8. With this set you also have the added bonus of keeping your muscles in good shape! :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

    (Just joking... I would really love to have them all in my bag)
  9. It's hard to tell, but it sounds like you're getting a 28-70mm regardless... if this is the case I'd let the 17-55mm go and pick up a 12-24mm Tokina and have $500 - $700 left to spend on other stuff... maybe a travel conzoomer lens, flash, tripod, or even a trip somehwere to use all the great equipment you'll have!
  10. icetraxx


    May 7, 2005
    Yes it does. I've been going back and fourth for about a year on the 17-55mm vs 28-70mm. I think that I might just rent one and see how I like it as compared to the 17-55mm. I have heard good things about Tokina and I've started looking at it too. Too many options too little money
  11. I shoot much more in the 28-70mm x 1.5x range... that's why I keep my primary zoom in that range and a purpose-driven wide-angle lens... I'm slowly beginning to shoor more wide-angle but I'm definitely not to the point I want to mix that in with my primary zoom.
  12. InitialD


    Mar 12, 2007
    Ok, this is what I did to solve my dilemma. The cheap way of course.

    Sigma 10-20 (still hunting for this)
    Nikkor AF 20-35mm f/2.8
    Nikkor AF 35-70mm f/2.8
    Nikkor AF-S 80-200mm f/2.8
  13. I really can't see the 20-35mm f/2.8 being versatile enough of a zoom to merit it over a prime... why not something like a 24mm or 28mm prime instead?
  14. Doug


    Jan 17, 2006
    East TN
    if someone said you must superglue 3 lenes to 3 bodies and this is what your using forever, my choice would be the 17-35, 28-70, 70-200VR. In this world, the 200VR 2.0 or 300VR 2.8 VR don not exist. Makes my decision simpler!

    That said, I may well get as good a results with the 17-55 s the 17-35, they are both very nice lenses. The 12-24 is a good and fun lens, but not a mainstay due to the optical distortion of the wide angle.

    But in the end, it's truly not what lens you have, but what you do with them that counts- you can quote me on that.

  15. cadman


    Dec 4, 2006
    Johns Creek, GA
    I would superglue the 17-55, 70-200 and a macro/portrait or superwide. I don't miss anything in the 55-70 range and when I tried the 28-70 as my normal lens, I was always bumping against the 28 end.
  16. I love the idea of the 12-24, 28-70 and 70-200 - HOWEVER, i do not see the advantage of the difference between the 12mm of the 12-24 and the 17mm of the 17-55. To me, that is negligible and worthy of a couple of steps forward or backward.

    Just the same, I dont see how moving a few steps up or back wouldnt eliminate the difference between the 55mm on the 17-55 and the 70mm on the 28-70. I have owned both of these and IMO, there is no optical difference in the two.

    My bag contains the 17-55, 50 1.8, 85 1.4 and 70-200 and am in heaven.
  17. going from 12 - 17mm is a very noticable difference... basicly the same as going from 17 - 28mm... or basicly the same difference in FOV as a lens being on film vs. on DX crop camera. 55-70mm is a less notciable difference.
  18. InitialD


    Mar 12, 2007
    I agree. Granted it's a poor man's replacement for the 17-35mm f/2.8 :biggrin:

    I forgot to mention that I carry the AF 18mm f/2.8 for a little extra wide. :smile:
  19. wbeem


    Feb 11, 2007
    Sanford, FL
    William Beem
    I'm another one who opted for the 12-24 (Tokina), 28-70mm, and 70-200mm VR. So far, I keep the 28-70mm on my body as my default lens, but I use the 12-24 quite a bit lately on the tripod for sunset shots. The 28-70mm just doesn't go wide enough.

    I'm a bit disappointed that I haven't used the 70-200mm more since I got it a few weeks ago. I keep toting that big mother around, but then I opt for wide shots. I'll have to go chase some tigers or something that deserves a closer inspection to see how it does.
  20. My main kit is 15-30mm f/3.5, 28-70mm f/2.8, and 70-200mm f/2.8... all Sigma. I find I'm well covered and I'm slowly using the 15-30mm more and more. I've also just picked up a 50mm f/2.8 macro that may or may not become part of my regular kit depending on how much I enjoy macro. I have an EF-500 DG ST iTTL flash I carry alot of the time.

    I usually carry the D50 + 28-70mm and 2 of the 3 other items (15-30mm, 70-200mm, flash) because that's what my Velocity 3 messenger bag comfortably holds. If I need to I can carry all the lenses in the main compartment and the flash in an outer compartment but that leaves the flash more vulnerable to damage.
  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.