Nikkor 17-55, f.2.8; 17-35

[simonbode]

In the moment i m working with the 18-70 mm Kit lens, but i m not

really satisfied with the results (sharpness, overall picture

quality). Does anyone has experience with the Nikkor 17-35mm or Nikkor

17-55?

Did anybody compare those lenses. Does it make sense to sell the 18-70

and buy a 17-35 or 17-55. And which of the two is the better

solution?<p>Thanks a lot!

[Ed_Ingold]

Either one is better than the 18-70 in sharpness, distortion and speed. Whether you will get better results depends on your subject matter and skill. The 17-55 is a DX lens, and will vignette badly if used with film. Otherwise, it is an excellent range to minimize lens-switching.

 

A lot has been posted on Photo.Net regarding these lenses and their comparisons. Obviously, you have not done a search.

[EricM]

Edward, have you ever used the crappy search engine here? Any idea how long it would take to do a bit of research when

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/forum?topic_id=1681">this</a> is what comes up as a result?

[j_sevigny]

I recently started using the 17-35 and I really like it. It's very sharp and well built. It's also

expensive. The other thing is that it's very big for a wide-angle lens, which makes it a little

awkward for sticking in people's faces, if that's the kind of work you do. But in terms of

optics, it's a fantastic "piece of glass." I don't think you'd be disappointed if you bought it.

 

Good luck.

[michael erlich]

I just got a 17-55 to use in place of the 18-70 kit lens. Sharp, bright, handles well but is bigger, heavier and has less reach than the kit lens. Both are AFS so they focus fast, but the 17-55 with a 2.8 aperture focuses better in low light. Since I do a lot of shooting indoors without flash it's worth it for me.

 

I don't think you will see much difference in overall image quality between the 17-55 and 18-70 on a 6 MP D100 or D70. Not $1000 worth, anyway. It would take the higher resolution of the D2X to really make the 17-55 shine.

 

As for the 17-55 vs. the 17-35, for general purpose use on a DSLR definitely go with the 17-55. If you intend to use a film body, the 17-35 will not vignette and would be more useful.

[simonbode]

thanks all for your answers. my main use for the lens is the "environmental portraiture", i don t know if this context of words really exists, however i try to make portraits of people in their usual environment, not studio or any kind of "posed" pics. mostly i use 18-24 mm. my second lens is a sigma f2.8 70-200mm and the results with this lens are much better in comparison with the 18-70. because of that i don t think the picture quality depends on the d70. the new nikkor 17-55 seems to be better than the "older" 17-35, but i didn t find any tests...

[robert_ardinger]

Just got the 17-55. Have the "kit" 18-70 also. The 17-55 is significantly larger than the kit

lens. The f/2.8 aperture is what I purchased it for. I think the optical differences between

the 17-35 and 17-55 are minimal, both are good lenses. A friend bought both with the

intent to keep one and kept the 17-55, not due to image quality but that bit of reach from

35-55 was very helpful for some of his portrait work. If you are choosing between the 17-35

and 17-55 for a DSLR with the work you describe doing I would think the 17-55 is perhaps

the lens for you but you really should try one in person on your D70 to see if you like the size

of the lens and the balance of the camera with the lens.

[simonbode]

thanks robert, i agree with you. i found some tests (17-35 vs 17-55) and the quality of both lenses seems to be comparable. the last question is: can you see a difference in picture quality between the 18-70 and the 17-55?

[cabophoto]

Simon,

 

I can't believe you haven't found any test of the 17-35 and 17-55 lenses. For a start, try http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2_PC.html

 

Carsten

 

http://www.cabophoto.com/

[simonbode]

Thanks Carsten for the helpful link!

[paul beiser]

Thom Hogan (www.bythom.com) has reviews of at least the 17-55 and 18-70.

[ShunCheung]

Please see this old thread: <A HREF="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009jVw">

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009jVw</A>.

[simonbode]

is it true, that there is no! visible difference between a 17-55 and a 18-70 on a digicam like the d70?

[scottkwest]

My 18-70mm kit lens couldn't focus lock at 70mm when it was new. I did a little web research and read somewhere that it was common for the lens to be misadjusted when shipped, so it always focused a little behind the subject. Mine's problem was more severe (though it still functioned OK), and when I brought it back (under warranty) Nikon fixed it no problem, except for the wait. You might want to have yours looked at.