DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Nikon 2.8 vs Nikon 2.8
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 17 of 17, (reverse)
AuthorThread
04/03/2009 09:46:17 PM · #1
So when I finally get some money for a new lens, I was thinking of the:

AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

or

AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

I have a D300 at the moment with the smaller sensor, so if I am ever going to upgrade to a full frame sensor is the DX version of the lens a bit pointless? Also the 17-35mm is $1800 on Amazon with some OK reviews, and the 17-55mm is $1200 with absolutely amazing reviews for supposedly the lesser lens?

So would buying the DX lens be stupid if I was ever to go full frame?
04/03/2009 10:00:00 PM · #2
Originally posted by rob_smith:

So when I finally get some money for a new lens, I was thinking of the:

AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

or

AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

I have a D300 at the moment with the smaller sensor, so if I am ever going to upgrade to a full frame sensor is the DX version of the lens a bit pointless? Also the 17-35mm is $1800 on Amazon with some OK reviews, and the 17-55mm is $1200 with absolutely amazing reviews for supposedly the lesser lens?

So would buying the DX lens be stupid if I was ever to go full frame?

I think you should go full frame and donate your D300 to an impoverished photog with a D70s!

Then, of course, get the 17-35!
04/03/2009 10:32:34 PM · #3
Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by rob_smith:

So when I finally get some money for a new lens, I was thinking of the:

AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

or

AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

I have a D300 at the moment with the smaller sensor, so if I am ever going to upgrade to a full frame sensor is the DX version of the lens a bit pointless? Also the 17-35mm is $1800 on Amazon with some OK reviews, and the 17-55mm is $1200 with absolutely amazing reviews for supposedly the lesser lens?

So would buying the DX lens be stupid if I was ever to go full frame?

I think you should go full frame and donate your D300 to an impoverished photog with a D70s!

Then, of course, get the 17-35!


Oooh...I got one of them D70sssssss too...so that makes me an impoverished photographer...hehehehe!
04/03/2009 10:42:39 PM · #4
Originally posted by rob_smith:

So when I finally get some money for a new lens, I was thinking of the:

AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

or

AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

I have a D300 at the moment with the smaller sensor, so if I am ever going to upgrade to a full frame sensor is the DX version of the lens a bit pointless? Also the 17-35mm is $1800 on Amazon with some OK reviews, and the 17-55mm is $1200 with absolutely amazing reviews for supposedly the lesser lens?

So would buying the DX lens be stupid if I was ever to go full frame?


I have borrowed my brother in law's AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED and certainly wish it had a bit more reach...wouldn't 17-70 be great!? On that basis, I would say the AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED would be my choice. It's a cracking great lens
04/03/2009 10:50:24 PM · #5
I have the amazing Nikon 17-35 2.8 lens and I keep asking myself why I waited so long to buy it!
04/03/2009 10:55:49 PM · #6
How do you find the range? 17-35 seems a bit limited, but I imagine you can't use the 17-55mm on a D700?
04/04/2009 12:42:19 AM · #7
Another endorsement for the 17-55. I use this lens about 90% of the time. I"ll worry about going full frame at that time. I think, if I understand these Dx vs non Dx things right, the 17-35 would be more like 24-55 on the D300, so if you want wider, then the DX is a better option. (At least that is my reason for going with the 17-55). I don't think it is that you can't use the DX lenses on a full frame, but it's not optimal and you only get the crop effect same as on the D300. How soon do you see yourself upgrading to full frame?

Message edited by author 2009-04-04 00:43:59.
04/04/2009 01:47:33 AM · #8
Like salmiakki I use my 17-55 90% of the time, and would find the 17-35 a very frustrating length. But if you're going full frame, go for the 24-70 - its even better than the 17-55 (reputedly), will give you extra length while you're on the cropped sensor, and will give you round about the equivalent reach on the full frame. Plus its usable on both cropped and full frame, so you'll never have to ditch it when you do the body change.
You have your sigma for the 10-20 range, so you'll only miss on 4mm.....shouldn't be too much of a killer, unless you decide to go 12-24 or 14-24 and cover all bases.
04/04/2009 02:04:14 AM · #9
I will second going for the 24-70. The 14-24 is also an option if you were looking for something a little wider than longer. The 17-55 is really nice though.
04/04/2009 04:57:06 PM · #10
If you ever go the FF route, the 17-35 is the better option. And oh yes you will. The D300, yeah, nice... But the D700.... It can also be a nice combination with a secondhand 35-70 2.8, which is a real gem on the FF cameras (surprisingly average on DX). Altough I prefer more overlap. Like 17-35 & 24-70. Skip that, actually I like primes the most. :)
04/04/2009 05:06:19 PM · #11
I'd go 17-35. It's a legendary lens and as mentioned the FF if or when you decide to upgrade, which of course will change the whole game. It also depends on what you shoot. The 17-55 might be a better walk around lens on a D300 but if you don't mind lens changing every now and then "limited isn't an issue...although there's that FF upgrade that will render it useless. Then again...you can always sell it (at close to the original price)if you do the upgrade...

You can use the 17-55 on a D700 but you'll lose pixels. So 4288px long on the D300 becomes 2784px on the FF. The focal length will appear the same on both cameras.



I honestly don't use mine much with the D700 or with the D300 because it didn't fit my style but a guy like AP would rock with it.

Good Luck

Message edited by author 2009-04-04 19:02:58.
04/05/2009 12:17:00 AM · #12
upgrade to FF?
Why not the Nikon 24-70mm 2.8?
I just got one, and it passes everything I've been able to throw at it. If I called any lens legendary, it would be the Nikon 24-70 2.8!!!

I have used the 17-55mm 2.8 a bit, here is my brief review and get an idea from another D300 user"

The good:
Center sharpness is very good all FL and apertures
amazing contrast
built like a tank
very light

The bad:
not the fastest AF (but still considered fast enough for most)
border/edge sharpness is VEry poor between 40-55mm f 2.8 - f 6.3
not very good close focusing distance
terrible resistance to flare, hence the large hood. even then still bad.

I can't comment on the 17-35.

Message edited by author 2009-04-06 04:22:05.
04/05/2009 01:03:43 AM · #13
Originally posted by ben4345:

upgrade to FF?
Why not the Nikon 24-70mm 2.8?
I just got one, and it passes everything I've been able to throw at it. If I called any lens legendary, it would be the Nikon 24-70 2.8!!!


i concur. Although i don't have this lens, every review that I have read is saying the same thing.
04/05/2009 07:45:18 AM · #14
I recommend the 17-35mm as I own this lens and use it as my standard lens. I use it on the D3 and the D300 and find it equally impressive on either body.
04/05/2009 11:05:17 AM · #15
Bjorn Rorslett does great detailed reviews of both lenses.



Message edited by author 2009-04-05 12:02:49.
04/07/2009 01:25:02 PM · #16
i think 24-70mm f/2.8G ED AF-S would be a better buy if your budget allow, $500 more.
High rating reviews on amazon too //www.amazon.com/Nikon-24-70mm-2-8G-Nikkor-Angle/dp/B000VDCT3C/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1239124973&sr=1-1
04/07/2009 05:04:29 PM · #17
It seems to me that both lenses are excellent. I will ask you this, how long until you realistically think you would go full frame? If the answer is over a year or two, I would say go with the 17-55 and then sell the lens when you changeover. The lens will hold its value if you take care of it and you would only "lose" a few hundred dollars maybe. Think of it as a rental fee. :) Another question is how often do you shoot in the 35-55 mm range? If the answer is often I would choose the 17-55, if never then maybe the 17-35. Also are you interested in ultra wide angle photography? On a full frame the 17-35 would be slightly wider then a 12-24 mm lens on your D300. To me that sounds great but make sure it fits your photo interests.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/16/2024 04:40:24 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/16/2024 04:40:24 AM EDT.