d700 lens hangup

Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
63
Location
missouri, US
i just purchased a 17-55 f/2.8(which i can send back to adorama becasue it isnt opened yet), and was planning on buying a d300 at the end of the summer. however, with the emergence of the d700, i think i may wait until next summer before i go to photo school to buy a new fx body. i dont want to screw myself over, so should i send the 17-55 back and get the 17-35 so i will be set in the future?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Dec 4, 2006
Messages
301
Location
Johns Creek, GA
NO!

Sell the 17-55 and buy a 24-70. On an DX body, the equivalent focal length coverage of the 17-55 is 25.5-82.5 so the 24-70 will be very close to the same on and FX body. Plus, it is one of Nikon's latest and greatest designs.

That's where I am going. But, I'm keeping my d300 with the 17-55 and adding the d700 with a 14-24 and 24-70. I will only keep one DX lens (17-55) it is that good.
 
Joined
Apr 15, 2008
Messages
393
Location
USA
Keep the 17-55 and stay on course with your plan. Don't give in to emotion and become involved in an expensive modification.

The used price of the 17-55 is not going to change much over the next couple years. When I recently sold mine on eBay there were almost 70 bidders who had my auction on their Watch list. Add to that number a few dozen more who simply bookmarked the page and revisited it. The demand for this lens will remain high because it is an outstanding performer. No wonder I had hundreds of auction page views!

Open the lens box and begin shooting. You won't regret it when you see what this lens can do.
 
S

ssjarz

Guest
I think that once the hoopla surrounding the D700 dies down and people start to realize what one can purchase in glass for the three grand that the D700 costs, the 17-55 2.8 lens makes more sense especially on the any of the DX bodies. My only complaint is that it is a rather large heavy lens to carry around all day. Other than that it is bulletproof, and the focus and focal length rings are butter smooth, a lot more so than the third party lens I tried before finally buying the 17-55. Now that was before the D700 came out of course. I own a D100 and a D80, can't seem to want to sell the D100, it still works just fine. They both work well with the 17-55 so I will probably keep it. Every time I sell a lens, I regret it.
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
1,011
Location
San Jose, CA
i just purchased a 17-55 f/2.8(which i can send back to adorama becasue it isnt opened yet), and was planning on buying a d300 at the end of the summer. however, with the emergence of the d700, i think i may wait until next summer before i go to photo school to buy a new fx body. i dont want to screw myself over, so should i send the 17-55 back and get the 17-35 so i will be set in the future?
I'd send the 17-55 back to Adorama. Then I'd be patient, watch our For Sale forum, and buy a used 17-55 from someone who is upgrading to a d3 or d700. And should you actually upgrade to a d700 next summer, I'll bet you'll be able to sell that used 17-55 for just about the price you paid for it.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
34,921
Location
Arizona
Real Name
Chris
... i think i may wait until next summer before i go to photo school to buy a new fx body. ...
You're going to photo school? I'm starting my third year in photo school in the Fall. You will need to take some film classes if it's a regular 'fine arts' oriented university curriculum. That's FX format, so stick with lenses you can use throughout. By the time you graduate, there will be all new digital bodies, and you will want to be able to keep the lenses you have, and only spring for new bodies (that is, unless you get way-laid into some major you will actually be able to make a living at! I'm just sayin' ...)
 
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
2,450
Location
Bay Area, USA
i'm not sure you want to get the 17-35. the 17-35 is a completely different lens from a 17-55, it is MUCH wider. Wider than the 12-24 on the D300. The closest FX equivalent is the 24-70.
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
34,921
Location
Arizona
Real Name
Chris
... the 17-35 is a completely different lens from a 17-55, it is MUCH wider. ...
What??? If the 17mm end of either lens is used on a DX body, it'll be a moderate wide angle lens. Similar to what 35mm shooters consider the 28mm to be. Wide, but not so much as to make people to look elongated if they happen to be near the edge of the frame.

The 17-35 will work on an FX body, such as the D700 or any film camera. The 17-55 will have issues on anything other than a DX body. Nothing wrong with that, but see what I said above. On a FX camera, it'll be an ultra wide with all the 'special' effects, just like Phil meant.
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
1,011
Location
San Jose, CA
the 17-35 is a completely different lens from a 17-55, it is MUCH wider. Wider than the 12-24 on the D300. The closest FX equivalent is the 24-70.
You have a talent, Phil. I don't know anyone else who could have packed that much mis-information into 2 short sentences - lol.
 
Joined
Jul 3, 2007
Messages
742
Location
california
I would return the 17-55 and with that money and the planned sale of the D80 and 18-200 order a D700 now. Your primes you have listed will work great on FX until you save up for your next lens purchase. Modern dslrs seem to only have 2-3 years before it is replaced and this is an argument for purchasing fairly early in the product cycle.
The 24-70 is a great lens may have better IQ than the primes you have but to me at least it's more pleasurable shooting with small primes.
 
Joined
Jul 14, 2007
Messages
2,450
Location
Bay Area, USA
What??? If the 17mm end of either lens is used on a DX body, it'll be a moderate wide angle lens. Similar to what 35mm shooters consider the 28mm to be. Wide, but not so much as to make people to look elongated if they happen to be near the edge of the frame.

The 17-35 will work on an FX body, such as the D700 or any film camera. The 17-55 will have issues on anything other than a DX body. Nothing wrong with that, but see what I said above. On a FX camera, it'll be an ultra wide with all the 'special' effects, just like Phil meant.
He said he plans to go FX, so you're comparing 17-55 on DX versus 17-35 on FX. Completely different animals.
 
G

Gary Mayo

Guest
You're going to photo school? I'm starting my third year in photo school in the Fall. You will need to take some film classes if it's a regular 'fine arts' oriented university curriculum. That's FX format, so stick with lenses you can use throughout. By the time you graduate, there will be all new digital bodies, and you will want to be able to keep the lenses you have, and only spring for new bodies (that is, unless you get way-laid into some major you will actually be able to make a living at! I'm just sayin' ...)
Photo school? Cool!

So tell me, where is the shutter button? lol
 
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