pcassity Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 Why is the 17-35 2.8 more expensive than the 17-55 DX 2.8? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_skomial Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 17-35/2.9 works with Film cameras, EX camera, and DX camera, and is a better lens. 17-55/DX / 2.8 works with DX cameras. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanjo_viagran Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 one reason could be because is a full frame lens (FX) when the 17-55mm is for Digital cameras only (DX) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcassity Posted October 7, 2007 Author Share Posted October 7, 2007 What makes it a 'better lens'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 It is mainly a supply and demand issue. When the 17-55mm/f2.8 DX was first introduced, it was in high deamnd and hard to find at over $1500. I in fact paid more for it in 2004 than what I had paid for my 17-35mm/f2.8 earlier. However, in the last couple of years, Sigma, Tamron and Tokina have come up with alternatives that cost like 1/2 to 1/3 of the Nikon 17-55mm/f2.8 DX, so Nikon has no choice but to lower their price to compete. Sigma: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/518483-REG/Sigma_582_306_18_50mm_f_2_8_EX_DC.html Tamron: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?shs=Nikon+17-50&ci=0&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=productlist.jsp&A=search&Q=*&bhs=t Tokina: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/498658-REG/Tokina_ATX165PRODXN_16_50mm_f_2_8_AT_X_165.html Those three 3rd-party lenses are all constant f2.8 zooms that are 50mm on the long lens. The wide end varies from 16, 17 to 18mm. However, only the Sigma is an HSM, the equivalent of Nikon AF-S. Neither Tamron nor Tokina has any AF-S equivalent lens at this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerryballard Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 The 17-35 2.8 should be called the bird lens. Not because it's any good for birds but because so many of them chirp. Mine, if not used for a week or so will give me 2 little chirps when focusing close and then it's quiet. I'm thinking of putting a zerk fitting on it. The price seems to be creeping up on these as the d3 gets closer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 I would imagine the 17-35 is much more expensive to make, it is a full frame wide angle lens and covers a much greater angle of view than the 17-55. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_k6 Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 I'd like to know what makes it a better lens too. I purchased one back in April for my D80 and my sample was soft in the corners and I was not happy with it. I returned it and purchased a 17-55. The 17-55 is sharp all over and it performs well wide open. I know use a D200 and I couldn't be happier with the results. I will say that I feel the 17-35 is built slightly better. The focus ring has a better feel to it. It feels "loose" like the 70-200 ring and you get a nice metal click when you reach either end. But the 17-55 takes some amazing pictures which are on par with my 70-200VR in regards to sharpness, and saturation. And for me that's all that matters. Search for some old posts on the topic. A lot of people say the 17-35 doesn't perform the same on a DX sensor as it does on full frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diane_madura Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 Daniel, my understanding is that the 17-55 is prone to lens flare (which it is, but otherwise an outstanding DX lens, IMHO), and the 17-35 is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 On a DX sensor DSLR, I see very little difference between the two in the focal-length range they overlap. The 17-35 has less distortion at 17mm. http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009jVw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liljuddakalilknyttphotogra Posted October 7, 2007 Share Posted October 7, 2007 Pat, I read many comparisons about these lenses & in the long run they all come out about the same. Both lenses are wonderful. I've seen tests by people who know how to make controlled tests (mine are home made & fit me - but would not ever stand up to scrutiny) the lenses both preform superbly. I love my 17-55 & I didn't think I'd love it as I'm one of those who can just not ever got "close enough" But that lens the day I got it had me laughing out loud. If you're planning on buying one of them - decide if & when you're going FX if you shoot digital. That should determine which one you buy. If you shoot film - then you should go with the 17-35. Bjørn Rørslett is great about his test reviews - check here http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html And here's another place to check http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showcat.php/cat/6 either of those might give you an idea why... Have fun Lil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniellane Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 Of course, the 17-55 will work quite well on the D3's DX mode. So it's not like the lens is suddenly obsolete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now