Does it matter what the Pros use? 17-55 vs 17-35

[azlan.sharom]

I've been debating getting one of these two lenses for a while now and am

leaning towards the 17-55 f/2.8 - if anything, because I quite like the 50mm

range for portraits on a DX camera.

 

It was however pointed out to me, that after 3 years or so in the market, the

uptake of the 17-55, particularly among Professionals and Press photographers is

still 'relatively low'; especially compared to the 17-35mm f/2.8

 

What do others think? Is there a 'message' hidden somewhere in this fact? Or, is

this fact even accurate?

 

Thanks.

[frank_skomial]

" in this fact? Or, is this fact even accurate? " - there is NO fact like that, so how it can be accurate ?

[lenlangevin]

I say who cares what the pros use? This is such a subjective area...you are the one who has to like how it feels in your hand, how you see through it and the results it gets.

[bsd230]

Most of them probably owned the 17-35 before the 17-55 was around. I really wouldn't see any need to get the 17-35 unless you shot film too which some pros still do along side digital. In fact I am putting my money where my mouth is and ordering the 17-55 very soon, as soon as B&H gets it back in stock. I want just a little more range than I can get from the 17-35 for a walk around lens.

[brad_w]

Speaking from a daily news point of view, when our 17-35's die, they get replaced with 17-55's. Most of us seem to find the relatively small additional reach surpringly useful. Still, a sharp 17-35 in good working order does just fine so there's no reason to replace it.

[Ed_Ingold]

Azlan,

 

Pointed out by whom? Most likely a shop owner that has a 17-35 sitting on the shelf but not a 17-55.

 

A 17-55 would be ideal for what I do (events, publicity), but I have a 17-35 which I purchased long before going strictly digital. This means a few more lens swaps on the job, or using a 2nd body. In the heat of things, I do the latter.

[ronald_moravec1]

My favorite is the 18/70 for a daily never take it off the camera.

 

70mm is perfect for portraits if you like a 85 on film. Although it is more narrow angle, 85 vs 105, the smaller format makes you go closer. Hard to explain but 300 mm is less than double the diagonal on 4x5 and it puts you way back compared to 150 on a `Blad which is further back than 85 on 35mm film.

 

I use 90mm at five feet on a Leica, and the 70mm on the Nikon D200 from the same distance. Strange but true.

 

You might want a faster lens though.

[azlan.sharom]

Thanks, everyone. I found Brad's comments particularly insightful - not everyone is going to change equipment just because there's something new out there - but many who do, may go for the 17-55. And we all know that the 17-35's last forever... :-)

[azlan.sharom]

I should add (wish this forum allowed editing of posts), that I've been following the arguments on distortion (the '55 has more of it, I gather) and other optical technicalities are something which I reckon, in the 'real world' and for most general use (as what I consider my little hobby), would not be noticeable.

 

My conclusion? The '55 is a solid lens, a solid performer and it has a range that I would find useful for my needs.

 

My, haven't I just sold myself on it?! :-D

 

Thanks for helping rationalize my decision...

[steven_moseley1]

Hi,

 

Professional racing drivers wear full harnessess with full face helmets and have water bottles pump water into their helmets..would fitting that gear into your saloon or hatchback improve your driving technique?

 

cheers Steve.

[warrenlewis]

I've been to high end photo exhibits that were shot with disposable cameras.

[azlan.sharom]

Steve,

 

I guess we all know the answer to that :-). Still, I think it's understandable to believe that if Pros use certain kit as a matter of cause, there must be a good reason for it.

 

Personally, durability and 'quality of optics' are the two implied strengths I make of lenses widely used by Pros.

 

Whether an amateur would actually need to employ the lenses under similar circumstances is of course open to debate. It's natural to want the best I think, and usage by Professionals is certainly one form of endorsement.

 

For me, I think the 17-55 is attractive due to: speed, zoom range, quality optics. My applications don't involve harsh environments but it's nice to know that if the lens does take a tumble (as my 70-200 did... ouch!) that it would be able to shake off such an experience easily.

[nolefan32]

Steve makes a great point, what the pros use isn't always what consumers require. Pros have different requirements than the average shutterbug, even the average serious shutterbug. It's not just about sharpness, it's also about build quality, autofocus speed, quietness, etc.

 

Think of it like this -- a lot of pros shoot Canon 1-series bodies or Nikon D2X's/D2H's. Does that mean that the Rebel or the D40 isn't worth owning or can't take a good picture? Of course not. It just means those cameras weren't designed for pro shooters.

 

In the end, just like when you picked your body, you have to judge those lenses for yourself. Does it fit *your* needs, *your* budget, *your* hands? Don't worry so much about if it fits the needs of some other shooter you never met.

[fullmetalphotograper]

I still have my old F5s and N90s, I think I have used them once this year. If the film format

was still a major factor to me I would look at the 17-35, but it is not an issue to me. I bought

a Nikon 12-24 f/4 DX. I love using it for portraits, so I would go for the 17-55.<div></div>

[steven_moseley1]

Hiya,

 

My real point is that the overwhelming majority of non professional photographers get far, far too hung up on equipment and spending money on it. If they spent just 20% of what they spend on gear and spent it on photo courses instead, their photography would improve in leaps and bounds....

 

cheers Steve.

[mjt]

"My real point is that the overwhelming majority of non professional photographers get far, far too hung up on equipment and spending money on it."

 

Steven M. ...

 

i have to disagree with you there. serious amateurs have more of a tendency to gather gadgets more than pros (believe me, i know some). pros are conscious about what they require and no more. sure, pros, as a rule, purchase high quality gear, but that's to be expected. and that rule holds in most all professions - software developers have fast efficient computers; chefs have cooking implements that no one else would think to have ... it's all about increasing productivity and creating a final product that has the highest quality.

 

yes, award winning photos have been taken with Brownies - we're all familiar with those stories. but for a pro, the requirement is to have high quality gear with exceptional build quality, because pros exercise their gear more than a serious amateur would.

 

regards, michael

[dayton_p._strickland1]

Azlan, the 17-55/2.8 was in short supply for a very long time, but I have to tell you it was

worth the wait. This is without a doubt one of the sharpest lenses I have personally ever

used. I carry two cameras with that lens and the 70-200/2.8 VR lens attached to the other

and don't have to worry about changing lenses and worrying about the sensor getting dirty

which is really nice. If you are a Nikon digital shooter the 17-55/2.8 is a great choice.

[steven_moseley1]

Hi,

 

Michael: "i have to disagree with you there. serious amateurs have more of a tendency to gather gadgets more than pros"

 

That is exactly what I just said..I said NON professional's are too hung up on gear...which is exactly what you are saying...so how are we disagreeing?...I am a little confused...

 

Cheers Steve

[bsd230]

I agree most professionals don't really keep up with or take chances on the latest and the greatest like the enthusiasts do. All that aside the 17-55 has excellent optics and better range. I'm sure 17-35 may be slightly better within that range but unless you were comparing them side by side you would never notice the difference. Believe me when I say that with the 17-55 will definitely exceed my ability as well as most everyone on this site.