Which lens to Keep? Nikon 17-35 f/2.8 or Nikon 17-55 f/2.8

[robert_cooper3]

This is a nice problem to have but I need some advice on which lens I should

keep. I'd like to keep them both but I'd like to sell one and buy another lens.

Of course the 17-35 f/2.8 is full frame and the 17-55 f/2.8 is a DX.

 

Right know I'm shooting with a D200 but hoping Nikon will come out with a more

affordable Full Frame D400? I don't need a D3 and skipping the D300 as I'd

prefer to have more lenses. Which lens would you keep and why?

[tgersten]

How important is the 35 to 55 mm range for you? Secondly, which lens do you currently

prefer in the 17 to 35 mm range?

[jon_j1]

Well, do you also shoot any film Nikons? If so, the 17-35 seems the best option. Don't hold your breath for a full-frame smaller-sized body; it'll be a long time coming. Besides, would you rather shoot photos now or wait until you get said camera? If you want an all-purpose lens and don't have a film Nikon, 17-55 seems like the right choice.

 

Also, there are plenty of discussions on the web comparing the two. I'd suggest Googling all you can about it as well.

[andrew_luke2]

I'd keep the 17-35. it performs better on the crop sensor than the 17-55 IMO and I still shoot film too. honestly, I'd never have even owned the 17-55 in the first place but if I had to choose, it'd be gone.

 

plus the 17-35 maintains it's value better as you can use it with any nikon SLR as opposed to the crop lens that can't work on the new pro bodies to the same degree. and i'm pretty sure nikon's not going back to crop anytime soon on the pro line.

[eric_arnold]

i'd keep the 17-35 as it's not only compatible with film/FF, but is simply a better lens. plus you could sell the 17-55 and get a 35-70 or a tamron 28-75 and still have money left over. either of which you could still use when you make the eventual move to FF.

 

the only reason to keep the 17-55 is if you don't forsee yourself moving to FF for at least four or five years.

[robert_cooper3]

The 35-55 range is somewhat important for the extra reach for family gatherings all around lens but prefer the bite of the 17-35. I do have a 50 1.4 that could be used in those situations. I do shoot some film on a F5 mainly B/W and Velvia but less as time goes by.

 

I know the 17-35 is a beter lens optically and I'm leaning that way. Going with a 35-70 would fill the gap nicely. My other lenses are all primes- 20 f/2.8, 35 f/2, 180 f/2.8, 300 f/4 and have my eye on the 70-200 f/2.8 VR and any proceeds from selling one will go to that.

[ShunCheung]

I can tell you what I did: I ready had the 17-35 but added the 17-55 for DX DSLR use. As long as you are using DX DSLRs, I would keep the 17-55. Any "affordable" FX sensor Nikon DSLR is at least 1 to 2 years away, and when that is reality, whether you'll like that particular camera or not is unknown at this time. If you switch to FX, change your lenses then. Additionally, the 17-35mm/f2.8 seems to out of date itself, replaced by the 14-24mm/f2.8, although I think the 17-35mm zoom range is more versatile than 14-24.

[tonybeach]

For Jon:

 

"Don't hold your breath for a full-frame smaller-sized body; it'll be a long time coming."

 

>Define a long time. My guess would be a year or maybe two.

 

For Andrew:

 

"I'm pretty sure Nikon's not going back to crop anytime soon on the pro line."

 

>They haven't left it yet. The D2xs is still in production and the D300 is designated as a pro camera.

 

For Eric:

 

"the only reason to keep the 17-55 is if you don't foresee yourself moving to FF for at least four or five years."

 

>That is a long time to do without a lens that may be more useful on a DX sensor for some applications. What's more, it is reasonably conceivable to want to keep both formats and the 17-55 will continue to be ideal for that format for the applications that it was intended for (PJ and events).

 

For Robert:

 

"Going with a 35-70 would fill the gap nicely. My other lenses are all primes- 20 f/2.8, 35 f/2, 180 f/2.8, 300 f/4 and have my eye on the 70-200 f/2.8 VR and any proceeds from selling one will go to that."

 

>I think the 50/1.4 would fill the gap better, and in either case you will need two cameras to do what one can do with the 17-55.

 

If the lens you were going to buy was a 14-24/2.8, then the choice would have been a simple one; but since you are looking for a different focal range, that makes your decision more difficult. It might help to think about what you are planning to do in a couple of years from now; for instance you may decide you want a 14-24/2.8 instead for an FX format camera and will also stick with the DX format -- if that is the case then I think keeping the 17-55 would make the most sense.

[davidgarth]

I see this a little differently.

 

My personal experience with my two samples of these lenses was that the 17-55 was superior at f2.8-5.6, they were essentially equal at f8 and that the 17-35 was slightly better at f11 and f16.

 

Nikon has not abandoned the DX format for pro bodies and probably won't for a long time. Many pros, including me, shoot wildlife and outdoor sports and we need the crop factor, pixel density and "extra reach" of the DX format. Canon has had both full-frame and cropped pro cameras co-existing in their line for years. Why couldn't Nikon do the same?

 

But even if they did abandon cropped sensor in their pro bodies there would still be millions of pro bodies and millions more consumer bodies out there and lots of continuing need for DX lenses. I think the resale of the 17-55 will hold up better than the 17-35 because the 17-35 has already been supplanted by better and newer lenses covering these focal lengths.

[jon_j1]

Anthony: A year or two is a long time in terms of picture taking. Why plan that far ahead and possibly miss out on some spectacular shots? I know planning ahead is good, but if I had to wait a year or two for a particular lens to reach its full potential while it was in my collection, I'd go nuts. In this situation, it kinda seems like the 17-55 would make more sense, seeing as you have all those primes for the film and that 70-200 vr is an amazing lens, believe me.

[robert_cooper3]

Thanks for the replies. After using both lenses extensively over the last 2 days I've decided to sell the 17-35 and keep the 17-55. I don't want to give up the extra reach of the 17-55. Comparing images from each lens is really not that big a difference besides I think the 17-35 in todays market still commands a pretty nice selling price.

[dan_lindsay]

The 17-35mm is one of the best Nikkor lenses Nikon ever made. Keeping the DX lens limits your flexibility down stream. Always chose quality over convenience.