17-35 mm f/2.8D IF-ED or 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED?

[lex1]

I would very much appreciate photo.net users' advice on which of the above lenses to buy. I have read reviews but I

value the opinions on this site most of all.

 

In my bag I currently have a D200 with the 50mm 1.8D and the 70-200mm 2.8. I also have the Tamron 11-18mm and

the Nikon 18-200mm both of which I am shedding because they are just not sharp enough (my requirements have

increased along with my experience). I would really love the new 16-24mm but can't afford it and it would be a little

wasted on my D200. I'm not considering the Nikon 12-24mm as it's not considerably sharper than my existing lens

(which is why I didn't buy it initially). So back to the question.

 

Many thanks in advance

Alex

[ShunCheung]

Exactly which zoom range do you need? The 17-55 is quite different from the 18-200 and in turn quite different from the 12-24.

 

Between the 17-35mm/f2.8 and 17-55mm/f2.8 DX, I would get the 17-55 as long as you are using a DX body such as the D200. I have both lenses and they are both excellent, but the 17-55 is better at 10 to 20 feet than at infinity.

 

I find the 12-24mm/f4 to be a fine lens, especially near the 24mm end. If you find that not sharp enough, most likely it is your technique instead of the lens. In that case upgrading lenses will unlikely solve the problem. Do you always shoot with a sturdy tripod?

[juanjo_viagran]

Lex,

 

I had both.

 

for your D200 and if you are no planing to go FX any time soon, the 17-55mm is the lens for you.

[Ed_Ingold]

Neither the 17-35 or 17-55 is significantly sharper than the 18-200. The have much less distortion and are built to "take it", and are a stop faster. If your current lens is not sharp enough, perhaps you need a good tripod and a little improvement in your technique.

 

Chances are you will want a full-frame camera in the future. If so, the 17-35/2.8 is a better choice since it can be used on either format.

[shuo_zhao]

Lex, both the 17-35 2.8 AF-D and 17-55 2.8 DX are top of the line Nikkor lenses. They should both be sharp lenses.

 

I supposed after you get rid of the Tamron 11-18 and the 18-200 DX, you will need a normal zoom in practice. There's no such thing as the perfect zoom for everyone, as people tend to shoot differently and use different FLs. So I guess you should let us know what FL would you prefer to use. (Some people will almost certainly want 18/17mm wide angle coverage with their normal zoom, while others would find 24mm on DX to be wide enough - some may even use something very wide such as the 12-24 or 14-24 2.8 frequently)

 

The 17-35 is a D lens instead of a G lens, so it has an aparture ring for use on old cameras. The 17-35 2.8 provides FF coverage for FX digital and 35mm film. The 17-55 2.8 is significantly longer, making it somewhat usable for portraits, while the 17-35 is really not long enough for a head/shoulders type of shot. The 17-35 2.8 is said to be more suited for landscape shots, while the 17-55 is said to be sharper for closer focused shots.

[Matthew Brennan]

Lex, the 17-55mm DX is by far and away the best DX lens I owned before moving to FX. On the D200 & D300 I can't

recommend it too highly, super sharp, well built and low CA. I now use the 17-35mm D lens on a D700 - it's also a stellar

performer but the focal range is so much better suited to FX. For sure - go with the 17- 55mm if you plan to remain using

DX bodies into the future, you will not regret it.

[lex1]

Thank you all for your helpful responses. I will probably go with the 17-35 as I may move to FX at some point and I have a 50mm lens in my bag which I am very happy with. I would ideally like a wider zoom but I'm not overly impressed with the edge to edge sharpness of the 12-24 and the others are too expensive.