nikkor 17-35 or nikkor 12-24

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by immage, Jun 3, 2005.

  1. immage

    immage Guest

    hi all,

    I want to buy a new lens, but now I doubt between this two Lenses normal my intention was to buy the 17-35 but the 12-24 seems okay too.

    how is the sharpness of the 12-24 vs the 17-35

    I already have a 28-70 so the 17-55 is to much overlap.

    do you guy's prefer the 17-35 or the 12-24

    sorry for the bad English
     
  2. Preston

    Preston

    273
    May 2, 2005
    Reno, NV
    12-24 is a great lens. I don't have the 17-35 or 55 lens so I cannot compare. You should look at the Tokina 12-24 I have heard it is as good as the Nikkor but half the price. Also what about the new 10-20 Sigma?
     
  3. rr

    rr

    19
    May 2, 2005
    The Nikkor 12-24mm is a very good lense;sharp,well built and (very important!) no flare!.This is especially important because most people will use it to shoot landscapes and this is one of the important differences with the cheaper broad angles.Have a look at "My Photosite" at the album Canterbury/Engeland,almost all the pictures were taken with the 12-24mm.The ones inside the cathedral at F4.

    Roadrunner.
     
  4. immage

    immage Guest

    how is the sharpness compared to 17-35?
     
  5. nfoto

    nfoto Guest

    The 17-35 is very sharp even on the D2X, the 12-24 is excellent too, but personally I'm not too fond of the excessive wide coverage of this lens. sometimes you might need the wide view, but mostly not at all.
     
  6. William

    William Guest

    12-24 DX is much more compact

    I would estimate that of the 13 lenses I use, about 1 of 8 frames I shoot are with the 12-24 DX for general photography. This lens works extremely well for me due to its zoom range, build quality, and physical qualities as it functions as one of my main lenses to shoot technical climbs and backpacking.

    I've certainly had the chance to use the 17-35mm, as one of my friends uses it on a D100. I'm happy not to have to carry it, because that extra bulk and weight can be spent on telephotos (or other equipment).
     
  7. GeneR

    GeneR Guest

    I have the 12-24 and the 17-35, and I prefer the 17-35. They are both excellent, but the 12-24 is just too wide, I often found myself wanting to be able to zoom out to 30mm or so and having to switch lens. On the other hand, I usually don't need to go wider than 17mm.

    Gene
     
  8. rr

    rr

    19
    May 2, 2005
    I'm surprised that some find the 12-24mm too wide.When I want some more reach I simply switch to the 35-70mm.

    I've taken numerous pictures at 12mm that I couldn't make with a 17-35mm.On my D100 that's 18mm and a 17-35mm becomes a 25.5mm at the wide end.In tele this is not a big difference but in wide angle 7,5mm makes a big difference.

    Compare a picture of an interior taken at 18mm and the same one at 25,5mm.You'll be surprised what difference this makes.That's the choice you have to make:do you need the extra mm?What are you going to use it for?Only you can answer that!

    Both lenses are sharp and well built.That's not the real issue.
     
  9. jfrancis

    jfrancis

    May 8, 2005
    Orlando, FL
    I have the 12-24 mm and love it. The difference between 12 and 18 (I have the 18-70 also) is huge, and makes all the difference for tight interiors or expansive landscapes. It is very sharp and has excellent color rendition. Since you already have the 28-70, you will get the best overall coverage with the 12-24.
     
  10. jkamphof

    jkamphof Guest

    I also am a big fan of extreme wide. While I really respect the words of Bjorn I do think if ultra-wide is something you enjoy shooting then you'll find it'll be on your camera all the time and 17mm may not be good enough.

    My 12-24 has become my main walk-around lens and I take a lot of shots between 12-20mm.

    If you have the 28-70 I can't see why the 17-35 is a desired lens especially when you think the 17-55 is to much overlap.

    Have fun and good luck choosing :)



    Joel.
     
  11. nfoto

    nfoto Guest

    I voiced my personal opinion. After having a serious wide-angle fling in the early '70s, with 15 mm as "normal" and 24 mm as "tele" on my F and F2 cameras, I moved towards appreciation of longer lenses. With the 17-35 or 17-55 I tend to use them as a flexible 28 or 35 mm, respectively. I shoot a significant amount of my pictures with 50, 85, 105 or 200 mm lenses these days. But this is me. Nothing more, nothing less.
     
  12. IMHO the 17-35 is a better quality lens, but the focal length on digital tilts the balance back to the 12-24. Coupled with either the 28-70 or 17-55 and the 70-200 makes a complete zoom set.
     
  13. Hi Koen,

    What exactly do you anticipate using your new lens for? Seems to me these 2 lenses are geared toward different uses (I realize they can overlap but I believe each has its own dominant use).

    I imagine that would help with the decision.

    _/oe
     
  14. 12-24 vs 17-35

    Koen, I also have the 28-70. I had the 17-35 which I just sold after buying the 12-24. I feel that we were going for wide, when we bought the 17-35. But with the 12-24, we can really go wide. If that does not do it put your 28-70 back on, it is a nice combo. Not to bad to carry around. CS Dayan
     
  15. Ken-L

    Ken-L Guest

    I can only speak for the 24-120VR, and for me this is one wonderful lens! The very best feature, the VR, allows me to take a really quick shot without worrying about camera shake.....here is my 1st posted pic with it - when I look at the full size shot it's sharpness is terrific.:

    [​IMG]
     
  16. papa85

    papa85 Guest

    I have the 12-24 and the 28-70 mikons all i can say is it covers all my needs.The 12-24 has no fisheye effect i use it a lot. just as sharp as my 28-70 if not sharper.
     
  17. immage

    immage Guest

    sorry that I didn't reacted until now ( I only got 2 e-mails that told me that there were new Ripley's) :?:

    why do I want to buy the 17-35?? well I've been told that it's one of nikkor's best zooms. it's starting to become a reference lens for tests.
    so the quality should be superb.

    also the weather in Belgium isn't that great so you kinda need the f2.8
    most of my pictures outside are at F 3.2 otherwise it's to dark.

    the use of the 17-35 would be landscapes but more often journalism pictures. parades and stuff...
    landscapes 10 day's per year..

    after reading quite some reviews i concluded that the use,build and feeling of these 2 lenses is completely different. I think you need them both.

    so I think I'm going to buy the 17-35, for the same reason I bought the 28-70 it just has THAT feel to me. the X-factor.

    and later I will buy something like a 14mm prime

    the difficulty of choosing wath lens is right for you, is the difference in comments you get. you guy's prefer the 12-24. in Belgium they say the 17-35 is the way to go. It gives me sleepless night's :D
     
  18. Jonathan

    Jonathan

    676
    Jun 11, 2005
    Southern Maine
    Can someone please tell me roughly the prices on these two lenses? Especially the 12-24. I guess I could check B&H, but may get input about other sources. Thanks..
     
  19. Jonathan

    Jonathan

    676
    Jun 11, 2005
    Southern Maine
    I can only speak for the 24-120VR

    Hi Ken, I feel the same about the 24-120. It's foolproof and much sharper than I expected. I've only had mine for 6 days, and it's not been off the camera once.

    Jon
     
  20. Here's an invaluable source for street prices.

    http://www.pricegrabber.com/

    Just search for Nikon 12-24mm.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
Help with decission for (budget friendly) FX wide zoom Lens Lust Sunday at 8:45 AM
Nikkor 28mm/1.4E ED Lens Lust Oct 30, 2017
?: Nikkor 300mm f/4E PF ED VR vs. 300mm f/2.8 VR II Lens Lust Oct 11, 2017
Is it the lens (Nikkor 70-300MM) or me? Lens Lust Sep 16, 2017
NEW Nikkor 70-300 f4.5-5.6 FX Lens Lust Jul 11, 2017