Nikon 17-35 2.8 or 17-55 2.8 DX ?

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by pcpearce, Jun 29, 2007.

  1. I am looking to buy either the Nikon 17-35 2.8 or 17-55 2.8 DX lens...

    I will be using this type of lens at prize-giving ceremonies or close action shots. What would be the best lens ?

    Thanks,

    Paul
     
  2. 17-55. Great events lens. And having looked at your gallery (impressive!!) I think it will give you more flexibility.
     
  3. 1FASTZ

    1FASTZ

    611
    Jan 25, 2006
    Cincinnati, OH
    Paul, this question has been covered several times here. Do a quick forum search and you'll find tons of reading material comparing the two. I own and love the 17-55, but have never tried the 17-35. Based on the reading that I have done, you can't go wrong with either one.
     
  4. 28-70,

    I'd want that extra reach in the long end.
     
  5. yoyo

    yoyo

    61
    Nov 9, 2006
    The Netherlands
    Wait two months...
     
  6. weiran

    weiran

    966
    Jan 2, 2007
    Nottingham, UK
    17-55, no advantage in getting the 17-35 if you don't plan to use it on 35mm.
     
  7. Interesting comment. Care to expand on that Yo?
     
  8. adrianaitken

    adrianaitken Guest

    Unless you don't like flare (admittedly not much chance of that being a problem in the UK at the moment though) !!
     
  9. yoyo

    yoyo

    61
    Nov 9, 2006
    The Netherlands
    Inside info.
     
  10. ultimind

    ultimind

    990
    May 13, 2007
    Cleveland, OH
    Interesting... :biggrin:
     
  11. ckdamascus

    ckdamascus

    928
    May 14, 2005
    New Jersey
    Based on that comment... I am speculating an update... maybe with VR.
     
  12. I must be in a bad mood. I read yoyo's post as speculative provocative and not very helpful to the original posters question. Especially since there is nothing more than, "insider information." It could be a full frame camera body so the 17-35 would be a better choice etc etc etc. Makes me wish for a Nikon rumor forum.

    Temper tantrum done.

    If using on a current digital camera I would get the 17-55. Great flexibilty and IIRC it was designed to be a photojournalist type lens. From the OP's gallery it looks like that's his style.

    That said if you have/use film cameras along with the digitals get the 17-35.

    Both are great lenses in any case.
     
  13. SP77

    SP77

    Jun 4, 2007
    Rockville, MD
    17-55 f/2.8 with VR?

    That's what I'm waiting for before spending $1200. :smile:
     
  14. Faceman

    Faceman

    260
    Aug 19, 2006
    LI, NY
    Are interest rates going up?!
     
  15. I hate waiting. I am just inches away from buying one of these and then this.............
     
  16. I never read into posts like "insider info", as it's pure speculation. Quite frankly my personal opinion is Nikon most likely is revamping their whole line, so anything a person purchases should be based on need at the current moment.

    Now putting that aside, it's very seldom you will aver loose your shirt on a Nikon Lens purchase. Question always is need, desire, and it's affordable. If all three things are in line, then I say go for it. I can't tell you how many sales of pictures I have made by just having the right tool for each situation. They eventually all pay them selves off. In the case of a pro photographer it usually is monetary, but for the rest you have to take into consideration the moments you have lost by waiting for the next best thing.

    GenoP

    Nikon D2h ,Nikkor 135mm f/2D AF-DC
    1/200s f/4.0 at 135.0mm iso200
    original.
     
  17. I have both and use both and find them to be excellent. The 17-35 is a hair sharper, and less flare prone, but the differences are very small. More reach on the 17-55 makes it a better walk-around lens.
     
  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.