Does anyone have any experience with these two lenses? Both are well reviewed, with the 17-35 earning slightly better scores. (As would be expected for the price difference.)

Thoughts are appreciated!

I don't have any experience with this equipment, but just in case you haven't run across these reviews, here are a few other data points (I have a friend who used to be a Nikon user and who's teetering on the edge between Canon and Nikon for dSLRs):

http://www.bythom.com/nikon.htm
http://www.imagepower.de/IMAGES/imgEQUIPMENT/AFS1735.htm
http://www.imagepower.de/IMAGES/imgEQUIPMENT/AFS1755.htm
http://www.olegnovikov.com/technical/1735m...735mmf28d.shtml

Hi there,

I happen to own both lenses.

I have never done a scientific comparison, but both are great lenses. I end up using the 17-55 more on my D2x because of the range, and its quality at its sweet spot appears to be slightly higher.

On the other hand, the 17-35 is probably sharper at the wide end.

Regards,
Bernard

I have a friend who has both. He concludes that both are extremely good (not unexpectedly) and that he uses the 17-55 more because of the range. However, he also stated that the 17-35 has better flare resistance. Because of that, and because it is FF Compatible (there are rumors of an upcoming D3 which will be FF), I would rather have this one if I had to choose.

HTH.

For a period, I owned the AF-S Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G, 17-55mm f/2.8G, 17-35mm F/2.8D and the 28-70mm f/2.8D lenses. However, I now use 1.5x sensor DSLRs exclusively, so I felt that the 17-35mm and the 28-70mm were sitting in my cupboard unnecessarily. Therefore I sold them.

On a reduced frame sensor the 17-55mm exhibits a little more barrel distortion at the 17mm setting than the 17-35mm at the same focal length. Conversely, the 17-55mm exhibits a smaller amount of chromatic aberrations when shot wide open (with regard to both the focal length and aperture).

The 17-55mm gets a lot of use on my D2x and D70, so I'd recommend this lens if you want a serious and flexible optic for the DX sensor.

My thoughts regarding Nikon's entry into full frame DSLRs is that if it happens it will probably be accompanied by a new wide angle, full frame zoom lens. This lens will aim to address corner softness, chromatic aberrations and distortion of wide angle zoom lenses. However, I do suspect I'm dreaming.

I also recently sold my 28-70mm f/2.8D, because I found myself switching lenses on reportage work too frequently. Since I bought the 17-55mm I've barely used my 12-24mm f/4G DX lens. I only really use the ultra wide 12-24mm for architectural work. It was crazy hanging onto four zooms that covered a similar range, so two had to go: the 17-35mm and the 28-70mm.

Time will tell if I was right, but in the meantime my insurance premium is enjoying the lighter load.

Das Bosun

I don't think that you are. Future will tell.

Best regards,
Bernard

All-

Thank you for your comments. I was leaning towards the 17-35 & I think I am going to stick with that lens. I will be buying my first dSLR in January. (unless the reviews of the D200 are absolutely horrible...not likely, but possible) I think the 17-35 will mate nicely with both the D200 & my current F100. I still shoot a lot of Pan F & I don't think I will be completely digital for a good while...or at least until my scanner dies...

Thank you again!



ps- Bernard, je crois que vous avez un copain à chez Nikon Japon, non...? Je ne sais pas rien!

If I could have a dollar for everytime I heard a diehard film shooter claiming, that once they buy a DSLR they'll continue to shoot both 35mm film and DSLR along side each other. Dreaming. The convenience of digital will get the better of you Frere Jacques. Scanning is a pain in the ass. Shoot RAW FILES and buy the 17-55mm, as this is an ultimately more flexible combination (for both a color OR a B&W workflow).

2c

Das Bosun

Non, je n'ai pas d'informations particulieres, mais ca me semble tres probable au vu de la politique generale de Nikon... we'll see.

Bernard

17-55mm has horrible flare...