17-35mm f2.8 -vs- 17-55mm f2.8 : "The Answer"

[eajames]

The answer for you may well be different than the answer that I have settled upon, but FWIW, IMHO, I have

settled on the 17-35mm f2.8.

 

For my photography, I look to wides for landscapes, and for landscape I generally dial down to an aperture

of f8 or smaller. Through extensive reading on this forum and others, I have learned that the 17-55mm is

great wide open, and certainly by f4; the 17-35mm, OTOH, is softer wide open and performance increases

to ~f11.

 

Having spent the better part of the past 24 hours testing and evaluating what I consider to be a good

sample of the 17-55mm, I have confirmed these findings: the 17-55mm is a pretty sharp wide open at all

apertures; my testing demonstrates improvement though f4 and f5.6. After f5.6 things take a turn for the

worse. I was fairly impressed with the 17-55mm even stopped down, but at most focal length - when

focused close (< 1meter) and between (5-7 meters) - the SHARPNESS decreases after f5.6. (I have not had

an opportunity to evaluate this lens for distant objects - I'm in Alaska, it's winter, and I work late.)

 

The 17-55mm is likely a great event lens; the 17-35mm - according to many reports - is sharper stopped

down.

 

The question of versatility still looms: many contest that the 17-55mm reaches out enough to provide a

better solution for portraiture. My conclusion - based on relative bokeh and performance of the

17-55mm at 50-55mm - is that I would rather change lenses. In a "head to head" comparison, my 50mm

f1.8 AF D performed significantly better at all stops.

 

I offer the above not as an end to a debate, but as a solution for my photography, and possibly yours.

 

My conclusion: the 17-55mm is a sharp lens, particularly at wider apertures; 17-35mm lens performance

increases through apertures that are preferable for landscape work.

[erik_loza]

OK....

[bennett ho]

That may well be the most confusing thing I've read today.

 

QUOTE: "the 17-55mm is pretty sharp wide open at all apertures" Doesn't wide open mean F2.8? I think you mean to say 'at the widest setting'.

 

QUOTE: "After f5.6 things take a turn for the worse. I was fairly impressed with the 17-55mm even stopped down"

Why are you contradicting yourself?

 

If you look for wides for landscapes then why not get the 12-24mm? Its more suited for landscapes on a Nikon digital body then the 17-35mm.

[hortensia_b.]

<i>QUOTE: "the 17-55mm is pretty sharp wide open at all apertures" Doesn't wide open mean F2.8? I think you mean to say 'at the widest setting'.</i>

<p>

I think he meant to say "at all focal lengths" instead of apertures.

 

<p>

<i>QUOTE: "After f5.6 things take a turn for the worse. I was fairly impressed with the 17-55mm even stopped down" Why are you contradicting yourself? </i>

<p>

It's not totally contradictory if he meant that he's still impressed with the lens even if it loses sharpness after f/5.6.

[eajames]

Thanks for pointing out my typo: By "all apertures" I meant: all (common) focal lengths. At

20mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 55mm my sample was very sharp at f2.8. I didn't

evaluate the lens at 24mm because I was making comparisons to my primes, and my

24mm isn't accessible.

 

When writing "fairly impressed" I was thinking of this thread:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00JY34&tag=

 

I was surprised at the performance of this lens at f16 and f22 - images from my 20mm

AIS, 28mm 2.8 AIS, and 35mm 1.4 were significantly compromised at these apertures,

whereas the 17-55mm was still putting up a good fight.

 

I realize that the 12mm - 24mm lens is a suitable answer for many. I use my 20mm

infrequently, with 17mm at the ready I might find it to my liking, but beyond that I have no

interest.

 

Of course there are many more things to consider when choosing between these two

lenses: flare, image circle, fall off, chromatic aberration, weight, size, price, focal length

range, manufacturing consistency, and even things as esoteric as the suitability of the

hood for dSLR shooting. For me, the most helpful revelation was learning that the

17-35mm is likely a sharper lens at landscape apertures.

 

Eric, glad that your concur:)

[elliot1]

You will of course get many people who own the lens and disagree with you, like, me, but...

 

Why would anyone invest so much money on such a fantastic lens to stop it down? I own the lenses because I need the wider apertures.

 

In any case, when use the lens for wedding/event photography and shoot groups of people, especially groups that are several rows deep, I always stop the lens down to f8 for increased depth of field. I see no decrease in sharpness compared to use wide open. I have printed many of these group shots at 13 x 19.

 

Additionally, you should understand that all lenses will have a sweet spot where they work best, typically 2 f stops down from their widest aperture, and that the performance of all lenses decreases after a certain point as you get to the narrower apertures. This is normal.

 

If you are shooting landscapes at f9, f11, f16, you will probably get equivalent results with the inexpensive 18-55 lens. Save your money.

[elliot1]

This photo is from a shoot I recently did, shot with d200, 17-55 at 32mm, f8.<div></div>

[michaelschrag]

"Why would anyone invest so much money on such a fantastic lens to stop it down? I own the lenses because I need the wider apertures."

 

Very simple - because most people that shoot landscapes also shoot other things as well, which may require wider apertures. If you have the cash why limit yourself?

 

Elliot - it has been stated innumerable times that unless you post 100% crops, a low res internet shot proves nothing. You cannot demonstrate the difference between a critically sharp image made from a 50mm f/1.8 lens versus a "brand X" 18-200mm zoom with the image that you have posted.

 

The differences between these two excellent lenses are likely to be very minor. A quick look at results on photozone show that resolution in the center and edges of an image top out at different apertures. So it may be difficult to walk away with one answer when comparing these lenses. Eric, it would be interesting if you could post some crops of your results and let us know if you are looking at the image center or the edge.

[michaelschrag]

For those interested, the 17-35mm has been evaluated thoroughly here:

 

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/

[Ed_Ingold]

For events, the choice is between a 17-35 and swapping lenses frequently (or using a second body), or a 17-55. Except for formal groups and portraits, using a fixed-length lens is a form of masochism. Different horses for different courses ;-)

 

It is nearly impossible to test lenses at an appropriate distance in an home environment. Most home-brew (and many "profesional")comparisons are made at ridiculously close range, and without attention to details (like parallelism). Zoom lenses are not copy lenses. At best, the medium itself, film or digital, may be the limiting factor.

[eajames]

Edward, I don't live in a shoebox - reread to my post and you may notice that I shot at two

distances. My evaluation was certainly "homebrew", but I think "impossible to test" is

laughable. Also: as I wrote, I believe that the 17-55mm is a better event lens because of

its sharpness wide open and because of the extra reach; by insisting that the 17-35mm

has relative short comings for event specialists, you're just agreeing with me. If I found

myself doing event photography on a regular basis my instrument of choice would likely

not be the 17-55mm, but rather a 45, focused on my right temple...but "different horses".

 

Elliot, I like your picture quite a bit but as Michael points out, it hardly illustrates your

disapproval of my comments. And a 100% crop of the left figure's right hand isn't

necessary - I can see it's not as sharp/focused as the faces. By disagreeing with me, are

you objecting to my conclusion that the 17-55mm is a great event lens; or that the

17-55mm is sharp wide open and optimal by 5.6; or was it my comment that the smaller f

stops (16 and 22) hold up surprisingly well? Informing us that all lenses have a sweet spot

is hardly sage advise - couching it in this manner merely reveals that my finding is not

important to your photography (hence, my post's first sentence).

 

Michael, I'd like to post an example or two but my target, in part, was copy written

material and I don't believe the author (BN) would appreciate seeing his work taped to my

guest bedroom's wall. Furthermore, my conclusion to go with the 17-35mm is not based

solely on my evaluation, but also - largely - in the many great web-based resources, like

the one you have suggested, and discussions (un) like this.

[michaelschrag]

Eric,

 

The 17-35mm is a great lens and I look forward to seeing some shots from it on your website.

[erik_loza]

Eric, I think part of the cynicism is from you suggestion that you have "The Answer" to a non-question. The 17-35mm is probably my favorite lens, but I have also used the 17-55mm and it is equally fine. In fact, if I only shot digital, I'm sure I would own it (plus the 12-24mm) instead of the 17-35mm and be just as happy. Don't speculate and then tell those of us who own one, the other, or both what they are or aren't good for. Just buy it and get to work, because I can guarantee you that either will turn into one of your most valueable tools once you do that. Good luck.

[eajames]

Okay...

[peter_koralis]

<p>I think its wrong for people to compare the 17-35 to the 17-55. They are two different lenses for different formats filling different needs. For more info and a great read, check this review out:<br>

http://nikonglass.blogspot.com/2009/05/afs-17-55mm-f28g-dx.html<br>

The other positive aspect of this lens, is that it now can be picked up cheaply on the second hand market.</p>

<p>PK</p>