Nikon 17-35 AF-S F/2.8 & 17-55 AF-S F2.8 G DX

[tina_lee1]

I want to get the wide-angle for my D100

Buy the lens 17-35mmF2.8 AF-s OR waiting for the lens 17-55mmF2.8

AF-s DX . I am using only Digital Body

THANK YOU !

[kinghawk]

I have the problem of choosing. I have the same D-100 and you really want the wide angle for your D-100 , 12-24 is the answer.

[ist_petit]

Tina

 

Both Nikkor AF-S 17-35/2.8 and 17-55/2.8G DX are all pro lenses, hence very expensive.Besides these two lenses,in my feeling,are a little too heavy on D100 which is relatively light.If you only use digital body,why not wait for Nikkor AF-S 18-70 G DX lens which equals 27-105mm focal length of the film body.That'll be excellent match IMO.

 

Cheers.

 

ist

[tim_sewell]

If you only need wide angle, have you considered the Sigma 12-24?<br>

Disadvantages - not a Nikkor, slower than F/2.8.<br>

Advantage - full frame, can be used on film body.

[michael erlich]

For really wide angle on a D100, 17mm won't do. It's only the equivalent of 25mm.

The 12-24 will give you the equal of an 18mm at the wide end. I have the Nikon 12-

24 for my D100 and I love it. I do PJ work and I use this lens for most of my shots.

[dealy663]

I've had a D100 for about 6 weeks now and just love the thing to death!

 

I recently sold me 17-35 f/2.8 so I could get the 12-24 f/4 DX lens. There is no question that the 17-35 is an awsome lens, but it just wasn't wide enough on the D100. I felt that since I haven't touched my F100 since going digital that it the money was best spent on a lens really built for the digital sensor. I am very happy with the 12-24, and have taken some really nice shots with it.

 

I wish I could afford to get the 17-55 2.8 when it comes out, but I will not likely be able to. So I may wind up getting the 18-70 at some point. The 12-24 does work on my F100 but only down to about 18mm w/out vignetting.

 

The 17-35 is heavy and large compared to the 12-24, but it is a more robust lens made of metal. Not to mention that it costs several hundred dollars more. I have to admit that I was really worried about selling the 17-35 since it was so awsome on my film camera, but like I said I haven't shot one frame on the F100 since going digital.

 

Derek

[ross_goldberg1]

I've been wrestling with this same dilemma for some time and could certainly use some advice. I've had a wide array of lenses, but my current creme of the crop is the AF-S 70 - 200 VR. I never actually had the 17 - 35. I'm currently using a D100.

 

Here's the problem...where I live, there simply is NOT ample opportunity to make use of a good telephoto lens so other than rare events, it goes largely unused...hardly worthwhile for a superb lens. I know I want wide angle and have always enjoyed 24mm (based on conventional 35mm film). I had a 20mm for a while, but didn't use it too much and resold it. I had a 35mm prime that I did love for both its 2.8 light and it's 1:2 macro ability. But eventually I felt it was redundant with the somewhat poor Tamron 24 - 120 I have so I sold the 35mm. So now I'm thinking I want the Nikon 105 Micro (already had the Tamron 90mm...was ok, and I can't help but wonder if I'd use the 105 enough, but I do enjoy shooting bugs and such) and either the DX 12 - 24 or the ever-delayed DX 17 - 55. The one concern on the 12 - 24 is that it is a 4.0 lens...not the quickest. And I've definitely become a bit spoiled by low light ability but the reality is that most shots are f/8 or f/11 anyway. So I've been in this conundrum for seemingly forever. On one hand, I hate to part with the 70 - 200 plus teleconverter (1.4x) but on the other hand, I want to increase the usefulness of my lenses w/r to how I like to shoot.

 

Thoughts?

[ray]

I have both the 17-35mm and 17-55mm and they are both great lenses. However, if you don't need the f/2.8 aperture, then the 18-70mm is a better bet for you.

 

Others have recommended the 12-24mm, however, unless you spend all your time at the wide angle end, you will end up getting a mid-range zoom also. In this regards, the 18-70mm is an excellent compromise. I needed the extra stop so I went with the 17-55mm lens (and will end up selling the 17-35mm that it's replacing).

[greg_williams1]

I have a D100 I've owned for almost 2 years. I've always had Nikon's 2.8 lenses since I had my F5 years ago. They're big and heavy, but a joy to use and produce good results.

 

I acquired a 12-24 mm G-series a few months ago, and have been very happy with it. I'm an architect and the wide angle of view is great for many interior applications. I just sold my 17 - 35, which I've owned for less than 2 years, and got the 17 -55 G-series yesterday. I, too, struggled with what to do. I have the 28-70 2.8, which I will now sell, and the 80-200 2.8. I'd like to get a lighter alternative to that last beast. Hard on the shoulder when traveling!

 

I will have a gap in my lens setup between 55 and 80, but I don't know that that's crucial. I also have a PC 28mm (how about a G-series PC 18, Nikon?), which I never use and should probably sell, and a 55 macro, also seldom used. Decisions, decisons!<div></div>