17-35mm 2.8 or 17-55mm 2.8 on D7000?

Since you're renting the 17-55 is a better buy, since that way you won't have to deal with selling the lens once you get the full frame.

Then again, actually buying the 17-55 is more economical in the long run.

Either way the 17-55 is better than the 17-35 on a crop. Same goes for Canon; the 17-55 is better than the 16-35.

These are both very different lenses. Remember on an FX body, the 17-35 is exactly that, a 17-35. On your d7000, the equivalent lens would be the 12-24. The 17-55dx lens corresponds more to a 28-85 type lens (in FX terms).

The 17-35 is a serious lens with a serious reputation from landscape photographers and photojournalists. It's tough, and it goes to war zones. I understand that this lens was discontinued several years ago, but so many pros complained and Nikon was forced to continue it (this may not be the case, I'm sure someone will correct me if it wrong!). It also costs a heck of a lot more than the 17-55!!

Personally, I can't really see how one can justify spending so much on a lens and then use it in such a way that the characteristics the lens has are not used, in this case the minimal distortion and low falloff on a full frame sensor. This is one of the reasons the lens is so expensive.

I would suggest you go for the 17-55, until you upgrade to ff. The 17-55 is a great lens with a great reputation, and you will be able to sell it on or trade it in for a good price when the time comes. If you need a wider lens then go for the 12-24, though this is constant f4, so a slower lens, but wider. The D7000 has great high ISO ability, so maybe just pushing the ISO a bit higher than normal could compensate.

Good luck with your decision. Both are great lenses whatever you decide.

coryndiego said:

17-35mm 2.8 or 17-55mm 2.8 on D7000? - I'll be using the lens for club shots, interiors, and events. I've rented both and am partial to the 17-35 for the way it feels, fast focus, and the Images seem to be sharper. I know it's an fx vs dx but I maybe upgrading in future and the rental lady was trying to explain that the crop factor doesn't apply to it. I havent compared pics but I didnt really notice a big difference. They both sure are $$$ but I'm just starting to make some cash with the camera and want to invest the lens rental fee and purchase.

Any feedback?

Click to expand...

I cant speak for the 17-35 but used to have the 17-55mm 2.8 coupled to a D200. The lens is superb. However, I highly suggest you rent it for a week because it is a very heavy lens and if you need to do flash work, forget about any pop up flash as the lens will get in the way of the throw of light from the flash pop up. I kept the smallest flash by Nikon back then (400?) which was a great complement to that lens and almost handled 17mm without significant light fall off.

Just my two cents.

I like the 17-55mm because its very wide. But I'm more partial to the 24-70mm lens. The reason I said the 24-70mm is that you have a nice zoom at 70mm. If you pair the 24-70mm with 10-20mm/10-24mm it would be a nice combo.

Look at how many photos you've actually shot at 17mm vs 55mm, you can tell which route to go. Remember the tele zoom starts at 70mm. (70-200mm). Then think about... if clubs and events are the only thing you are gonna shoot. Concerts


Also, you have a D7000... then you can also look into older lenses. Save some money. A D-type lens like 28-70mm or 35-70mm.

All the lenses you have listed are sharp. You just need to find the sweet spot. As said before, the 24-70mm focuses faster and will give you more zoom.

I purchased a couple of DX lenses when I started shooting digital; but as soon as I knew I was headed towards FX, I started re-investing in older lenses and sold my DX glass. One of these older lenses was the 17-35mm f2.8.

Just for fun, you might try renting this lens in tandem with a D700 to see if you like it on an FX body. I love this combo, for overseas travel or local events.