Keep my 17-55 DX or get a 17-35?

Joined
Mar 4, 2005
Messages
15,427
Location
Los Angeles, USA
So I'm kind of on the fence on what to do with my 17-55 DX. It's currently mounted to my D2X which I still use for short lens flash photography. I think it's perfect for what I need it for, but it has left a gap with my D3, because I currently don't have a fully usable short lens. I was thinking of getting the 17-35 as a cross over lens, but I do loose the extra focal length, though gain on the wide-end with the D3. Or I could keep my 17-55, have full compatibility with my D2X, and be able to use it on the D3 from 28-55 with slight vignetting.

Any opinions would be greatly appreciated!
 
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
1,593
Location
Franklin MA US
So I'm kind of on the fence on what to do with my 17-55 DX. It's currently mounted to my D2X which I still use for short lens flash photography. I think it's perfect for what I need it for, but it has left a gap with my D3, because I currently don't have a fully usable short lens. I was thinking of getting the 17-35 as a cross over lens, but I do loose the extra focal length, though gain on the wide-end with the D3. Or I could keep my 17-55, have full compatibility with my D2X, and be able to use it on the D3 from 28-55 with slight vignetting.

Any opinions would be greatly appreciated!
Keep the 17-55 for dx. Get a 20mm for the D3.
 
Joined
Feb 11, 2006
Messages
6,616
Location
Riverside, CA
Is there any reason you aren't happy with the DX crop of 6mp when mounting that 17-55 on the D3? Have you tested it? I used to make 24 inch prints from my 6mp 10d with very nice results. Do you have a need for really big prints, so you don't want to use it in crop mode?
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
4,830
Location
Newcastle, Wa
If the 17-55 is only 28-55 on a full size 35mm sensor, then having a 17-35 is almost like owning 2 completely different lenses. I would get the 17-35 too
 
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Messages
7,892
Location
East TN
why would you care to use wide on the D2X, when wide on the D3 is so much more of a good thing? The 17-35 will be a lot wider on the D3, than the 17-55 is on DX. Forget crop mode IMO, why crop an image if you don't have to. Use the best of both worlds, for this situation I see the D2X as great for distance shots, so use with long glass where there's plenty of light, or you may wish to use for portrait or bright images some. But surely you have alternate glass that could go both ways? If not, the 17-35 is sort of it, it will go both ways, (DX or FX), but it's certainly not ideal for wide open 2.8 work.

Of course, all that said, you do get a different extreme with the 17-35 on both FX and DX bodies. It really becomes more like a 17-55 spread across to bodies.

But I got to be honest, the more I use FX, the more I don't turn back to DX cameras, and I now don't own any DX lenses, all sold. I'll keep the D2Xs for a while longer though.
 
Joined
Feb 11, 2006
Messages
6,616
Location
Riverside, CA
why would you care to use wide on the D2X, when wide on the D3 is so much more of a good thing? The 17-35 will be a lot wider on the D3, than the 17-55 is on DX. Forget crop mode IMO, why crop an image if you don't have to. Use the best of both worlds, for this situation I see the D2X as great for distance shots, so use with long glass, or you may wish to use for portrait or bright images some. But surely you have alternate glass that could go both ways? If not, the 17-35 is sort of it, it will go both ways, (DX or FX), but it's certainly not ideal for wide open 2.8 work.
The reason I suggested crop mode is because he only has the DX lens (17-55) currently. Of course, ideally, get the 17-35, but if he wants to shoot now, with no cash outlay, crop mode might be something to try.
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2005
Messages
15,427
Location
Los Angeles, USA
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #7
I shoot a little different than you guys because of my work. I shoot primarily short lens flash with my 17-55 and D2X. I find the image quality of the D2X quite acceptable between 100 to 400 ISO. In fact the D2X probably has the best 100 ISO of all Nikon DSLR cameras. My D3 is mounted to my telephotos, unlike some other shooters I need to be able to shoot telephoto focal lengths in varying light conditions, and the 1.5x crop isn't as important as having the ability to shoot cleanly above 1600. I might just end up keeping my 17-55 DX and also pick up a 17-35 as a wide angle replacement to my 12-24 I just sold!

I'm also trying to minimize my equipment to the bare essentials.
 
Joined
Jan 17, 2006
Messages
7,892
Location
East TN
ok, I knew you had some differing requirements. Well, I guess you get some close up work then, maybe the 17-55 on D2X makes perfect sense then. It's not rocket science, if it's worked in the past, and you want it to continue to work, why not.

as to adding a 17-35 to replace 12-24, a viable decision, but of course does nothing to consolidate.

I get it Rodney, I just have a hard time thinking in terms of cropping to less than 6 mpx, even though I know your right, you can still get usable images that way.
 
Joined
Oct 5, 2007
Messages
1,830
Location
Newtown, PA
On DX it'll still be a waste, spec'ed way too close to the $80 kit lens
Not even close. The IQ and build quality on pro lens vs the $100 kit lens is night and day.

I own neither a FF or the 17-55, but I have heard that it actually works quite well on a FF camera in FF mode with very little vignetting, I believe towards the longer end. Might want to give it a try first before you throw in the towell on the 17-55.
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2005
Messages
15,427
Location
Los Angeles, USA
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #12
I think I'll just pick up a 24-120 VR and be done with it. 24 is wide enough on FX, and I'm quite happy with the 17-55. Plus 24 isn't bad on DX. Better than 28 that's for sure! I also much prefer using the 10.5 Fisheye whenever I need to go wide! :wink:
 
Joined
Feb 11, 2006
Messages
6,616
Location
Riverside, CA
I think I'll just pick up a 24-120 VR and be done with it. 24 is wide enough on FX, and I'm quite happy with the 17-55. Plus 24 isn't bad on DX. Better than 28 that's for sure! I also much prefer using the 10.5 Fisheye whenever I need to go wide! :wink:
Be careful, my 24-120 isn't very sharp wide open, which I assume is how you shoot most of the time...?
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2005
Messages
15,427
Location
Los Angeles, USA
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #17
1st 24-120 VR was stolen
2nd 24-120 VR was damaged after being run over
3rd 24-120 VR was an insurance replacement that was sold to finance a 17-55 DX

The 24-120 VR did the job, but I eventually settled for the 17-55 DX, which to this day I don't really want to part with despite going FX and my affinity to the D2X. Ideally I would much prefer a 24-85 AF-D which is by all accounts sharper than the 24-120 VR and more contrasty than the 17-55 DX, but I'm feeling cheap right now!
 
A

adrianaitken

Guest
Why not sell the 17-55 and buy a 17-35. You can use it on both FX and DX. You're only losing a few mil. on the long end.
 
N

Nuteshack

Guest
nothing wrong with "feeling cheap" ....28-105 should work..;-)
 
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