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!

why is nikon 17-35 more than 17-55

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by hahnphoto, Jun 12, 2007.

  1. hahnphoto


    May 21, 2007
    The answer to this may make me kick myself, but I can't figure out why the f2.8 nikkor 17-35 costs more than the f2.8 nikkor 17-55 with a wider zoom. They both have the low f#.
    USA version prices:
    f2.8 nikkor 17-35 $1500
    f2.8 nikkor 17-55 $1200

    why??? I know the 55 is a DX lens, but I thought that would make it more $, not less.
  2. Combining very wide angle optics, continuous f2.8, ED and other special glass, internal focus, zoom, silent wave AF, and great build quality is pricy. I expect a high quality 12-24/2.8 made by anybody would be very expensive.
  3. You mention something quite significant.
    17-55 is dx.
    17-35 is 35mm frame size.

    bigger glass to project to a bigger imaging area is a big factor too.

    DX image circle is smaller.

    The f2.8 lens in my elph is tiny and cheap but pretty good quality considering
  4. dsp921


    May 16, 2006
    Because the DX lenses are designed to work with the smaller area of the digital sensor they can be made smaller, lighter and cheaper.
  5. hahnphoto


    May 21, 2007
    Makes sense. They seem to promote these "made for digital" lenses as the best thing, so for cameras such as my D200, is it just as good to get a DX lens, or is there still a benefit of buying a 35mm frame size lens with the bigger glass?
  6. Scotty_R


    Jan 1, 2006
    I can't tell you why the 17-35 is more expensive than the 17-55. What I can tell you is that I have owned both lenses and I sold the 17-55 because I could never take a picture with it that suited me. The images out of the 17-55 were a bit soft all the time, they lacked contrast and the color was mediocre every time. The 17-35 has been a winner since the day I put it on a body...sharp, contrasty and rich color. I'll be the first one to admit that I don't know up from optics, but I know a good picture when I see it. And that, to me, is what a lens is about--rendering a good image.
  7. The 17-55 also doesn't have an aperture ring which accounts for fewer parts and assembly steps. Plus, I'm sure they priced it where the market is for this type of lens. If they thought they could get another $200 for it they would. As far as the build quality versus price, it's a tank.
  8. TimK


    Apr 17, 2006
    Hong Kong, China
    Besides bigger glass (which is probably more expensive to produce), everybody is expecting Nikon to come out with close to full frame pro and prosumer bodies. That would also keep the price up for the 17-35.

    Anyways if I were ask to make a choice between them I would definitely go for the 17-35.
  9. If you ever shot the 17-35 you'd know why. The 17-55 is good but not like the 17-35.
  10. Yep!!

    I sold my 17-55 two years ago to Gregg. It was and is a fabulous lens. Then I had a chance to purchase the 17-35... no comparison, it's a tank!! DX versus FF, whatever works for you!!:biggrin:
  11. billg71


    May 4, 2007
    Atlanta, GA
    I haven't shot the 17-55 but it'd have to go a long way to match the quality of my 17-35. It's one really sweet piece of glass! :biggrin:

    And it works on the dinosaur bodies, too! All except the F....

    As others have already pointed out, it's the build quality, the FF coverage and the aperture ring that make up the difference in cost.

  12. Customer cost is not a function of manufacturing cost. It is what the market place determines. What adds the max dollar to the bottom line for Nikon at the end of the year determines customer cost.
  13. Ditto to that :biggrin:

    If Nikon made a 18-200 F2.8 lens (with low distortion, high IQ, low CA, flare and ghosting) but only cost them $100, I can see a good number of us here, myself included, that would gladly pay $2000-3000 for it provided we had the funds, hehe :wink:
  14. Dave


    Feb 7, 2007
    Suwanee, GA
    Well I have a rented 17-35 right now, and I am not that blown away with it. I think the biggest problem I have is that the zoom range is just not long enough. I had it at a party this past weekend, and while it took great shots, I could have really used the extra 20mm that the 17-55 would have provided. Of course I haven't tested that lens out yet either, so I am not sure how it would perform, but I do know that I need a bit more reach on my standard zoom lens than the 17-35 produces.

    The images were stellar though, just not the right type of lens for me.
  15. El Taino

    El Taino Guest

    Although stopped down the 17-35 is a better performer (not for a big margin) I don't find the 17-55 to be soft at all. Especially wide open this lens really shines, better than my 2 ex copies of the 17-35 which I used for a few years. Anyone shooting events, should consider the 17-55, more reach and the lens will be used at wide appertures very often, how frequent an event shooter will use the lens at F/11 + ???. Stopped down the 17-35 is better, but no enough to justify having both. Sold them, moved with the flow and don't regret it a bit....Lacked contrast??? Unless you had the heck of a junk copy....
  16. The 17-35mm is a full frame lens in f2.8. Big glass costs more money. If you plan to shoot any file, then this is this lens over the 17-55mm. However, who among us don't have more than one 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.