Opinions of Nikon 17-35 vs 17-55

[Jeff Perry]

I would be interested in anyones opinions about the differences between the Nikkor 17-35 f/2.8 and the 17-55 f/2.8 (DX), besides the obvious focal length and crop factor of the 17-55. I have the 17-55 and while a bit disappointed about the placement of the zoom ring, I otherwise thing it is a very nice piece of glass. However, because it is a DX format lenses, mounting it on my D3 means I am not really taking advantage of the wide end of the focal length range. I'm thinking of selling the 17-55 and buying the 17-35, since I can use the latter on my DX format bodies, and frankly don't need both.

Is the build quality of the 17-35 up to the 17-55 standards?

Thanks,

Jeff

[gaopa2]

Ummm.... Jeff, I guess I should not respond as I don't own the 17-35 nor the D3. However, I do own the 17-55 and LOVE it! My favorite lens is my 70-200/2.8 VR and my second favorite is the 17-55. I have it mounted on a D300 and get tack sharp images. Again, I should not have responded, but just had to give a big thumbs up for the 17-55! Cheers, Bill P.

[cyclohexane]

The 17-35 is just as well-built, if not better. Zoom ring is pretty much in the same place though.

[Jeff Perry]

I too love the optics of the 17-55, but that darn zoom ring really bugs me. On the 17-35 the zoom ring seems to be about 1/3 wider and is slightly farther away from the lens mount because of the intervening f-stop aperture ring that the 17-55 doesn't have. Anything would be an improvement over the "bad design" of the 17-55 zoom ring placement.

More importantly, the 17-35 is a full frame lens so when I slap it on the D3 I won't get the DX-crop and will get the entire benefit of the 17mm's angle of view. I just want to make sure the glass/optics are up to par.

Thanks for the responses

Jeff

[cyclohexane]

Wide open, the 17-35 kind of stinks compared to newer lenses; center sharpness is inferior to the 17-55. At f/5.6 and beyond though, the lenses are equal, and the 17-35 is better corner to corner.

Also, flare performance is leaps and bounds above the 17-55.

[g-man]

Jeff,

You've sprung for the D3 and D300, now it's time to put the best glass on these babies. Pick up a 14-24 f/2.8 and a 24-70 f/2.8.

Gary

[Jeff Perry]

Gary, you almost got it right...

I have the 14-24 f/2.8but opted in stead for the 28-70 f/2.8, and have been very please with both. Sadly I have not been as happy with my 17-55, thus the question about replacing it with the full frame 17-35. Don't get me wrong, the optics are superb on the 17-55 but I have difficulty with the ergonomics of it. Slapping the 17-35 on the D3 would be getting the angle of view equal to about an 11-24mm on the DX sensor of my D300. Putting the 17-55 DX on the D3 is like, well..a waste of valuable real estate. The way I figure it, if you do the math, when I put the 17-55 DX on the D3 the crop factor gives me just about the the same focal length range as my (full frame) 28-70 on the D3.

I really like the (true) operating range of the 17-55, but am willing to forego the extra distance for a better range at the short end. Obviously I m lookin' for middle ground here, when I don't want to (or can't) lug both the 14-24 and the 28-70 around.

thus far, I have been reluctant to get rid of the 17-55, until the D3 full frame gave me a good reason to trade (up/down) depending on your perspectvie I guess.

Jeff

[g-man]

Given the current Nikkor lens lineup I would come to the same conclusion as you and look to the 17-35. It's going to be your best option to cover the middle ground while avoiding the DX lenses. Plus you would be able to slap some filters on the front of the 17-35 for landscape work if needed. That's about the only thing keeping me from the 14-24 at the moment.

Gary

[Jeff Perry]

I hear ya, that's one scary (and heavy) piece of glass hanging out there, all unprotected. Like a huge eyeball! I thought fisheye lenses were the only ones that needed to protrude like that. I've never measured the filter diameter that it would take if Nikon had designed it that way, but it must be somewhere in the neighbrhood of 90mm or more across the lens hood. A Heliopan Polarizer in that size would cost almost as much as a D40 body.

Jeff