Nikon 17-35mm or 17-55mm 2.8

Punkybeth · November 2, 2010

Nikonians...I need your help. A friend of mine is asking me about lenses for his camera. I am a Canon girl, so Nikon is all a mystery to me. He owns a Nikon D90 (currently) and he wants a wide angle lens for doing landscapes. I suggested the 17-35mm 2.8, since I have the 16-35mm 2.8L and it is my most used (and favorite) lens for landscapes. So right now I'm looking at lens for Nikon and I see the 17-55mm 2.8 but it works for DX cameras only?:scratch So, I know that the D90 is DX format but from what I am reading online, the 17-55 on a D3 might work, but would only give you the crop factor of the D90.

The price difference between the two is not tremendous, so which lens would be the best investment? If he decides to upgrade eventually to a full frame, would it make sense to get the 17-35 now?

Any thoughts, experience, etc...anything would be helpful!

Thanks so much!

met · November 2, 2010

There is the Tamron or Sigma 17-50.

Punkybeth · November 2, 2010

met wrote: »

There is the Tamron or Sigma 17-50.

Yeah...but he was only really looking at the two Nikons. I'd like to know the pros and cons of each of these two.

r3t1awr3yd · November 2, 2010

17-55 on the Nikon is tack sharp and EXPENSIVE.

If you're shooting landscape during the daytime... why not the 18-55?

Punkybeth · November 2, 2010

r3t1awr3yd wrote: »

17-55 on the Nikon is tack sharp and EXPENSIVE.

If you're shooting landscape during the daytime... why not the 18-55?

Well, he's got the 18-105 3.5-5.6 kit lens, but he was looking for 2.8 for low-light (for shooting inside abandoned buildings, etc.) But he wants a wide-angle lens...so if he takes the leap and buys the D3 in the future, wouldn't the 17-55 still give him the crop factor?

Like I said...Nikon is a mystery to me. Sorry to sound so clueless

. I find Canon much easier to figure out (dunno...maybe because I've been shooting w/ Canon since 1996

)

Zerodog · November 2, 2010

Punkybeth wrote: »

Well, he's got the 18-105 3.5-5.6 kit lens, but he was looking for 2.8 for low-light (for shooting inside abandoned buildings, etc.) But he wants a wide-angle lens...so if he takes the leap and buys the D3 in the future, wouldn't the 17-55 still give him the crop factor?

I think the Nikon 17-55 is a killer lens on a DX sensor body. Super sharp and super fast.

The 17-55 DX lens on the FX body D3, D3s, D700 works fine but it does not give you the full sensor area. The camera sees the DX lens and uses the sensor area of the smaller DX sensor. It does work but I think you only get 6 megapixels? Maybe 8? Not sure but you loose a bunch. So DX lenses are really only for DX cameras. So it is not the lens that gives the crop factor, it is the sensor size. The DX lenses are optimized for the DX sensor.

Punkybeth · November 2, 2010

Zerodog wrote: »

I think the Nikon 17-55 is a killer lens on a DX sensor body. Super sharp and super fast.

The 17-55 DX lens on the FX body D3, D3s, D700 works fine but it does not give you the full sensor area. The camera sees the DX lens and uses the sensor area of the smaller DX sensor. It does work but I think you only get 6 megapixels? Maybe 8? Not sure but you loose a bunch. So DX lenses are really only for DX cameras. So it is not the lens that gives the crop factor, it is the sensor size. The DX lenses are optimized for the DX sensor.

OK...so does that mean on a D3 you'd get the full 17mm at the widest angel? You'd only be losing pixels?

Zerodog · November 2, 2010

Yes you get the 17mm as it appears on a DX sensor camera. You do not get the full 12mp of the FX sensor. The camera uses only the footprint of a DX sensor when a DX lens is mounted. Unless you want a crazy vignette.

Y_Knot · November 2, 2010

Robyn, If it was me I would buy a good used 17-55 & use it until I upgraded to the D3 . You could sell the 17-55 & not lose much money. If the D3 was going to be purchased real soon, I might go for the 17-35 or 14-24. The 17-55 is a great lens for DX or crop cameras, But on the D3 it would cut the corners off anything below approx. 24 mm. Using this lens in crop mode on a D3 would defeat to purpose of using a full frame camera anyway.

YMMV

Steve

Punkybeth · November 2, 2010

Thanks everyone!!!! I appreciate your opinions, and info. I will let my friend know. Dgrinners are an awesome bunch!!!

DoctorIt · November 4, 2010

I've moved this thread out of the Flea Market and into the Cameras forum where you may get more answers and discussion.

Jeremy Winterberg · November 4, 2010

Just wanted to throw my $0.02 in. I loved the 17-55 2.8 when I had a D300. As soon as I upgraded to a D700 I had to get rid of it though. Tell your friend to get a used one on Fred Miranda, you can usually pick one up for around $800 or less in excellent condition. And if he's planning on switching, he wont lose too much money selling it.

I now shoot with a 5DMKII, no longer on the dark side of the force.

Nikon 17-35mm or 17-55mm 2.8

Comments