Advice on new Nikkor lens

[srennie]

I have the funds to purchase a new lens for my Nikon D200. I currently own the 18-70mm and the 70-300mm. Most of my work is documentary/street photography. Should I go for the 17-35mm Nikkor or the 17-55mm. Both are 2.8.

Thanks for any advice,

Susan

[mminegis]

hi Susan,

What about a prime? like 50mm/1.4? That's a never-to-be-separated kind of lens for me!
I only have another lens which is 17-35 mm/2.8 and am wanting 24-70 mm/2.8. But need to decide first on my other thread...  

mari

[BernardLanguillier]

There is no universal answer to this question.

The 17-35 is a great lens, but its range is IMHO too narrow for being a good universal lens, the 17-55 is a better option if you plan on staying on APS sensor for a long period of time.

If you consider moving to FF sensor in one or 2 years from now, then I believe that the 17-35 is probably a good move.

Cheers,
Bernard

[bob mccarthy]

I have the funds to purchase a new lens for my Nikon D200. I currently own the 18-70mm and the 70-300mm. Most of my work is documentary/street photography. Should I go for the 17-35mm Nikkor or the 17-55mm. Both are 2.8.

Thanks for any advice,

Susan
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=180670\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I own both the 17-55 and the 18-70 lenses for my D2x. As long as you use the middle stops, the 18-70 works as well for street photography. Wide open it is no contest.

The 70-300 is not the best over about 200 mm (also own the ED version, don't know why). Get a 70-200/2.8 and ditch the longer zoom.

bob

[duraace]

I'm having fun with my 85mm f1.4. Very high quality and 1.4 shots produce unique perspectives using available light.

[John Camp]

Probably the 17-35, but it depends on your style of shooting. Most street photographers tend to shoot a little short, or a little long. I personally like my lenses a little long, and on a 1.5x camera like yours, a fast 50mm would give me about a 75mm FOV, which is close to perfect (for me.)

For street photographers who prefer things a little wide, the 17-35 is a terrific lens (equiv. FOV of ~25-52), but it *is* large and heavy. I have it and I find that it seems to balance better on larger cameras, like the D2x or D3 -- your D200 body is only a couple of ounces heavier than the lens. That's mostly a thing of getting used to it, but you should definitely try it out first. It's *heavy* if you carry it all the time -- more than three pounds for lens and body together.

If you have not yet worked out how you like to shoot (long or short), then a zoom is the answer until you find out, but if you have a particular kind of vision, the best option would be to buy some fast-light primes that fit the way you shoot. You could get all three of the excellent 50mm f1.4 AF, the 35mm f2 AF and the 24mm f2.8 AF primes for less than $1,000 total, new.

The biggest problem I see with the 17-55 is that it's a DX lens. When the D200's time is up, and if you remain interested in street photography, chances are you'll want to go to an FX for the ISO advantage (which I'd say could be as much as three stops going from the D200 to the D3.) You can use the FX lenses on the DX bodies, but not the other way around.

JC

[Moynihan]

...Most of my work is documentary/street photography.

My 35mm f/2 AF is very sharp and "aberration free" on my D200.

[jcote]

Should I go for the 17-35mm Nikkor or the 17-55mm. Both are 2.8.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=180670\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Susan,

I have owned both lenses. The answer lies in the answer to this question. Will you ever feel the need to purchase an FX sensor Nikon camera? If your answer is yes, the only lens to buy, of the two you mention is the 17-35. However, this lens is not the best choice for your present DX sensor camera.

Though the 17-35 is a somewhat better lens in almost every way, as has been stated above, it has a very narrow range, and is not really wide on a DX camera. The 17-55 has a much more useful range.

[srennie]

I have the funds to purchase a new lens for my Nikon D200. I currently own the 18-70mm and the 70-300mm. Most of my work is documentary/street photography. Should I go for the 17-35mm Nikkor or the 17-55mm. Both are 2.8.

Thanks for any advice,

Susan
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=180670\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thank you all so much for the informative replies. I have much to think about. I hadn't thought about a prime, but perhaps that might be a good bet.

Susan

[PTeeCee]

Have owned both lenses, could not wait to get rid of the 17 - 55 (always found it a tad to short for what I wanted on a 1.5 crop and the IQ of my sample was flat, OK but DUH. The 17 - 35, on the other hand, was a case of severe seller's remorse (sold it to a pal and I know where he lives so all is not lost!), I felt I had to sell it with a 14 - 24 and 24 - 70 (more to my liking, range-wise) in hand I could hardly justify keeping it. But it was/is a great/spectacular lens (sharper in the corners @ 2.8 at both ends of its range than the other samples in FF, if that is any measure of a lens), more than holding its own against the other two. It is just the range that limits its utility. If you are comfortable in that zone I would plump for the 17 - 35 over the 17 - 55 every day of the year.

[NashvilleMike]

Sorry for replying so late in the game - I must have missed this earlier.

Anyway, in my opinion this is a very easy decision, based upon what you shoot. For someone doing street/event/documentary work the 17-55/2.8 CLEARLY is the choice simply because it is sharper near the wide open end of things (the 17-35/2.8 doesn't get crisp until F/5.6 or so) and works excellenty at the shorter distances typically encountered in this type of work. Also, the extended range (going to 55 instead of 35) will be very helpful for your intended use.

Note that this does not imply the 17-35/2.8 is a bad lens - I own a 17-35/2.8 and it's a great lens and would be my choice if you had asked which lens to get if you primarily shot landscapes or wanted the ultimate sharpness stopped down at distance - lens selections need to take in intended use as a determining factor.

As for a prime - to be frank, unless you are on a budget, you will get a better and more useful lens with the 17-55.

-m

[duraace]

Sorry for replying so late in the game - I must have missed this earlier.

Anyway, in my opinion this is a very easy decision, based upon what you shoot. For someone doing street/event/documentary work the 17-55/2.8 CLEARLY is the choice simply because it is sharper near the wide open end of things (the 17-35/2.8 doesn't get crisp until F/5.6 or so) and works excellenty at the shorter distances typically encountered in this type of work. Also, the extended range (going to 55 instead of 35) will be very helpful for your intended use.

Note that this does not imply the 17-35/2.8 is a bad lens - I own a 17-35/2.8 and it's a great lens and would be my choice if you had asked which lens to get if you primarily shot landscapes or wanted the ultimate sharpness stopped down at distance - lens selections need to take in intended use as a determining factor.

As for a prime - to be frank, unless you are on a budget, you will get a better and more useful lens with the 17-55.

-m
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184941\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What's your opinion of the 14-28(?)mm f2.8 for the same purpose?

[NashvilleMike]

What's your opinion of the 14-28(?)mm f2.8 for the same purpose?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=184990\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You know, the 14-24/2.8 is quite likely one of the most amazing lenses to be made by any manufacturer - I absolutely love mine and constantly am just stunned by the images it produces, but for event work I think I'd still recommend the 17-55 for the much more useful range. In addition, the 14-24 is a bit "risky" for street work given the large unprotected front element.

I think sometimes people will try to make lens decisions based upon the first question of "which is the better lens" and not fully qualify the type of shooting they do and not fully think through the suitability to the task. It's real easy to get caught up in the "best lens" in a general, "absolute value" sense where one talks only of image quality and I'm the first to admit that's something I do often, but the suitability to task is so much more important as ultimately I might really like a Ferrari Enzo, but if I lived and worked day to day in the streets of NYC, it really wouldn't be the most useful vehicle, you know?

Best tool for the job, after all....


-m

[flbrit]

I have a D300 and was recently in the position of needing better glass. I decided on the 17-35 2.8 and a 50 1.4. I have not regreted these purchases. Both are fantastic. As noted above, I bought these lenes because I will probably go FF in 2 years time. If I had intended to stay with DX then I might have decided differently but now knowing these lenses, I am glad I did not! Even if I stay DX.

Regards

Brian

[duraace]

I have a D300 and was recently in the position of needing better glass. I decided on the 17-35 2.8 and a 50 1.4. I have not regreted these purchases. Both are fantastic. As noted above, I bought these lenes because I will probably go FF in 2 years time. If I had intended to stay with DX then I might have decided differently but now knowing these lenses, I am glad I did not! Even if I stay DX.

Regards

Brian
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185060\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hmmm.. that's an important consideration.  Lenses should be for life, and looking forward to FF whenever that comes for current DX owners is an important consideration.  Does the 17-35 work in FF (not cropped to DX) on a D3 (i.e. FF camera)?  Any compromises on DX cameras? Why not the newer 14-24mm?  Similar small range, so basically a wide angle with *some* variability.

NashvilleMike
"risky unprotected front element"??  Is that the only downside?  How does it differ from other lenses?  Not sure what "unprotected" means.  Wouldn't the hood help? Taking care, etc.?

[NashvilleMike]

NashvilleMike
"risky unprotected front element"??  Is that the only downside?  How does it differ from other lenses?  Not sure what "unprotected" means.  Wouldn't the hood help? Taking care, etc.?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185128\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]

If you've ever held one in your hands, you'll know what I mean

Seriously - any 14mm lens that's F/2.8 is going to have a pretty stout front element - it has to in order to get that field of view. The front element of the 14-24/2.8 is aspheric, big, and curvy - the lens design, being apparently optimized for image quality above everything else including ultimate usability in all situations, apparently precluded the use of filters - there is no filter ring or filter slot on this lens at all. Now - to be honest, for me that isn't much of an issue outside of possibly it wouldn't be my first choice to use in a sandy dunes valley or near an ocean with spray all around, and the lens does come with a big cap that covers the element nicely, but there ARE a LOT of folks who are very concerned that they might bump that front element into something or use it in conditions where they normally would use a protective filter but now can't, and for those folks, this may not be their best option for a lens. Myself - I don't use any protective filters except if I'm facing sea spray, but there are other opinions besides mine.

If you think about event or street photography, or photojournalism, I think there is a definite chance of getting your equipment banged around - so for some types of this work you'd want something that is less obtrusive and more protected or able to be protected, and even then everyone will have a different take on whether it matters. All I'm saying is that while personally I will likely "expose" the lens to conditions that might be rougher and say "the heck with it, I want the shot", there are likely an equal number of people who will be much more caution oriented and want to use a lens that offers filter ability or doesn't have such a vast front element. And for the latter group, the 17-35 (or 17-55) would be the better options.

[duraace]

NashvilleMike

I seem to recall the lens cap for this lens was more like a cup you pushed on.  Is that correct. Do you think it's sufficient to protect the the lens?  Also, are there any compromises when using this lens on a DX camera?  Since it works on a FF, it would be upwards compatible (i.e. a lifetime lens).

[flbrit]

the 17-35 is not a DX Lens and works fine on FF

Brian

[NashvilleMike]

I seem to recall the lens cap for this lens was more like a cup you pushed on.  Is that correct. Do you think it's sufficient to protect the the lens?  Also, are there any compromises when using this lens on a DX camera?  Since it works on a FF, it would be upwards compatible (i.e. a lifetime lens).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185300\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think the cap (cuplike, as you say) is plenty protection for general use.

I use the lens on DX bodies - my D2X and D300, and it's incredible there. Don't listen to the naysayers that state it's only worth having if you have a FF body - that's a bunch of bull - it's a great lens that works well on anything it fits.

Sounds like you're about to be laying down the plastic and getting one, eh?



-m

[duraace]

I think the cap (cuplike, as you say) is plenty protection for general use.

I use the lens on DX bodies - my D2X and D300, and it's incredible there. Don't listen to the naysayers that state it's only worth having if you have a FF body - that's a bunch of bull - it's a great lens that works well on anything it fits.

Sounds like you're about to be laying down the plastic and getting one, eh?



-m
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=185606\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks! I too have D300 and a weakness for the fineness things in life, but I've laid down the plastic too many times of late and will have to postpone getting this lens for awhile. It's on my list though!