-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Pics of 17-35 2.8 vs 17-55 2.8
- Thread starter Diderot
- Start date
The thing I'm interested in seeing is this. The 17-55 is supposed to be sharper at large apertures. The 17-35 is supposed to be sharper at about f8 or F11 and on up. I'd like to see some comparisons so I can see how much sharper each is at various f stops.
Anyone seen any comparisons of these two lenses?
Diderot
Anyone seen any comparisons of these two lenses?
Diderot
Yes, exactly as you said. The 17-55 is sharp wide open and the 17-35 need step down to have the same sharpness.
For the landscape I suggest the 17-35, for the event, function and people I suggest 17-55.
I have send you some comparisons images for 4 lenses @20mm (17-55 f2.8, 17-35 f2.8, 18-55 f3.5-5.6 and 20 f2.8) to your email via yousendit.com for your reference. All images are use tripod, timer, same setting and same camera.
Because the some lenses are borrow from my friend and I don't have enough time to do all focal length (@20mm some lenses @19mm because hard to found the exact 20mm).
I also attached the link of the images for who interested.
http://s4.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=14YCINFECT64N1AGQ1PCEB4BUG
--
Leo L
I just create a simple web page that have all test images for download.
http://leolui.sinaman.com/
--
Leo L
Leo,
Thank you very much for these pics! They were just what I was looking for. I would like to know, however, what was your exact focus point?
For me, the biggest surprise, though, is how well the 18-55 does in some of them. I think it does better at 3.5 than the 17-55 does at 2.8 and geez, it comes within a smidgen of the 18-35 at f8. What a deal.
However, I have promised myself to get the best and that constant 2.8 will be a big plus in some situations.
But I'm still not sure which I'll go. I'll be studying your pics some more, that's for sure.
The 17-55 is definitely the one that would suit my work best. I'm a journalist and I can see that extra reach could help out quite a bit. Although not as convenient, I have other lenses for the reach. The 17-55 is extremely sharp at 2.8 which would be great. The thing is though, the photos I shoot for work don't really need critical sharpness. Even though the sharpness might show, I'm buying this lens, not my company. The 17-35 would be sharp enough at 2.8 for these purposes - sharper than the company lens I use now.
For printing news pics in mags I don't think my pics need tremendous resolution. I shoot some environmental portraits so it could be good in this area. For strait portraiture, which I seldom shoot, I have other lenses that will do. I love street photography but I'm thinking that very seldom does a pic of this type need tremendous clarity and precision to come off. Henri Cartier Bresson is probably my favorite photography but his greatest pics are often darkish and grainy.
On the other hand, it looks like if you're shooting pics of the Grand Canyon, the 17-35 will give you a clarity that nothing else will approach. Although I don't shoot that kind of pic currently, that is something I'd like to have the capability to shoot - after all it is a tremendous area of photography, overall, and as I'm only buying one of these lenses, it is something I'd like to be able to do should I suddenly feel the call. Frankly, although I've never really gone out of my way to shoot a landscape, I'd like to do it sometime. I hear the echo of Ansel Adams in the back of my mind.
I think the main situation where I'd need great resolution and clarity in wide angle is if I were to start shooting something like weddings - a situation I really wouldn't look forward too, but heck, you always got to be prepared.
What do you think? Is my thought process making sense?
To sum up,
Basically, what your pics seem to boil down to is that 17-55 is very sharp at 2.8 but really doesn't get much or any sharper as the aperture gets smaller. The 17-35 is not at its best at 2.8 but continues to get sharper very quickly until it is sharper than just about anything out there (and, after all, it is about as sharp or sharper than the 20 mm at 2.8).
Finally, to my eye the 18-70 is just about as good as anything. It looks very close to the 17-35 at 2.8. The only thing is it doesn't have the 2.8 constant aperture and so even though it is a great deal, there will be people like myself, who will pass on it and spend an extra $1,000 for that low light capability and hate that they had to do it.
Anybody have any comments on what I'm saying in this post? I'd like to hear it.
Thanks again, Leo for posting these pics.
Diderot
BTW, Leo, In the future you might want to leave out words like "bug" and "infect" in your download links. That gave me pause, let me tell you. I'm glad you posted the website, too.
Thank you very much for these pics! They were just what I was looking for. I would like to know, however, what was your exact focus point?
For me, the biggest surprise, though, is how well the 18-55 does in some of them. I think it does better at 3.5 than the 17-55 does at 2.8 and geez, it comes within a smidgen of the 18-35 at f8. What a deal.
However, I have promised myself to get the best and that constant 2.8 will be a big plus in some situations.
But I'm still not sure which I'll go. I'll be studying your pics some more, that's for sure.
The 17-55 is definitely the one that would suit my work best. I'm a journalist and I can see that extra reach could help out quite a bit. Although not as convenient, I have other lenses for the reach. The 17-55 is extremely sharp at 2.8 which would be great. The thing is though, the photos I shoot for work don't really need critical sharpness. Even though the sharpness might show, I'm buying this lens, not my company. The 17-35 would be sharp enough at 2.8 for these purposes - sharper than the company lens I use now.
For printing news pics in mags I don't think my pics need tremendous resolution. I shoot some environmental portraits so it could be good in this area. For strait portraiture, which I seldom shoot, I have other lenses that will do. I love street photography but I'm thinking that very seldom does a pic of this type need tremendous clarity and precision to come off. Henri Cartier Bresson is probably my favorite photography but his greatest pics are often darkish and grainy.
On the other hand, it looks like if you're shooting pics of the Grand Canyon, the 17-35 will give you a clarity that nothing else will approach. Although I don't shoot that kind of pic currently, that is something I'd like to have the capability to shoot - after all it is a tremendous area of photography, overall, and as I'm only buying one of these lenses, it is something I'd like to be able to do should I suddenly feel the call. Frankly, although I've never really gone out of my way to shoot a landscape, I'd like to do it sometime. I hear the echo of Ansel Adams in the back of my mind.
I think the main situation where I'd need great resolution and clarity in wide angle is if I were to start shooting something like weddings - a situation I really wouldn't look forward too, but heck, you always got to be prepared.
What do you think? Is my thought process making sense?
To sum up,
Basically, what your pics seem to boil down to is that 17-55 is very sharp at 2.8 but really doesn't get much or any sharper as the aperture gets smaller. The 17-35 is not at its best at 2.8 but continues to get sharper very quickly until it is sharper than just about anything out there (and, after all, it is about as sharp or sharper than the 20 mm at 2.8).
Finally, to my eye the 18-70 is just about as good as anything. It looks very close to the 17-35 at 2.8. The only thing is it doesn't have the 2.8 constant aperture and so even though it is a great deal, there will be people like myself, who will pass on it and spend an extra $1,000 for that low light capability and hate that they had to do it.
Anybody have any comments on what I'm saying in this post? I'd like to hear it.
Thanks again, Leo for posting these pics.
Diderot
BTW, Leo, In the future you might want to leave out words like "bug" and "infect" in your download links. That gave me pause, let me tell you. I'm glad you posted the website, too.
anotherMike
Veteran Member
Understand what you're saying completely.
I shoot three things, in order of # of frames/year
Studio people/fashion
Live dance performance (rare) - neither lens applies for me in this arena, so it's not pertinent.
Scenic landscape (not wildlife)
I own the 17-35 and can absolutely attest to three things:
For landscape work it is without question the best lens I own hands down.
For studio work where I'm in close and need that 'look' - it also is the best lens I own (or in a tie with the 85/1.4) in terms of the contrast, sharpness and general subjective qualities at the studio apertures. It holds up even to the critical nature of the D2X under any possible shooting condition I've ever thrown at it from f/5.6 onwards.
I also wish it had a bit more range and thus someday I might consider the 17-55 for the studio work and leave the 17-35 for the landscape stuff. BUT, it's not enough of a need for me to spend the $ on the 17-55 when I have other dreams like the very expensive (and hard to justify) 200/2 in mind, so I make do with what I have.
In your situation you might find the 17-55 to be more the lens that fits your style and it probably is still quite adequate in the landscape/scenic department even if maybe it's a smidgeon less than the 17-35 at that task.
-m
I shoot three things, in order of # of frames/year
Studio people/fashion
Live dance performance (rare) - neither lens applies for me in this arena, so it's not pertinent.
Scenic landscape (not wildlife)
I own the 17-35 and can absolutely attest to three things:
For landscape work it is without question the best lens I own hands down.
For studio work where I'm in close and need that 'look' - it also is the best lens I own (or in a tie with the 85/1.4) in terms of the contrast, sharpness and general subjective qualities at the studio apertures. It holds up even to the critical nature of the D2X under any possible shooting condition I've ever thrown at it from f/5.6 onwards.
I also wish it had a bit more range and thus someday I might consider the 17-55 for the studio work and leave the 17-35 for the landscape stuff. BUT, it's not enough of a need for me to spend the $ on the 17-55 when I have other dreams like the very expensive (and hard to justify) 200/2 in mind, so I make do with what I have.
In your situation you might find the 17-55 to be more the lens that fits your style and it probably is still quite adequate in the landscape/scenic department even if maybe it's a smidgeon less than the 17-35 at that task.
-m
You are welcome, I use the center focus area (it is near the tree at center). All lens use AF to focus to the same focus point.
I also have the 18-70DX and 12-24DX few months ago, I found that all DX lens have similar characteristic, all very sharp wide open and only slightly improve when step down. As you seen from my test images.
For the far object e.g.landscape the three zoom lenses (I thing all wide angle lens) seem not much difference. But when you use it for event like weddings or people you will found that the 17-55/17-35 are much much better than the kit lens(18-70/18-55) in terms of the contrast, sharpness and color.
The constant f2.8 is that your extra $1,000 pay for, also the the contrast, sharpness and the coloration at the low light capability that you will never have from the kit lens.
One more thing you need to know is the 17-55 that I used for the test images is the 4th copy. The 1-3 are all have left/right side soft problem. I need to wait for four months to got a good one. That why you seen some people said the 17-55 not sharp as the 18-70. So you may consider you may got a bad copy of 17-55.
--
Leo L
Yes, Mike, it's that word "smidgeon" that's got me. The 17-35 is a smidgeon sharper but I guess I'll have to figure out if it just that smidgeon that would make a landscape photo really sing.
The 17-55 is really the one designed for my general photographic needs - with a smidgeon more reach and a smidgeon better performance at low light than the 17-35 (well maybe more than just a little better at 2.8).
One thing you said that struck me is that the 17-35 is great for you in the studio when you're up close. Boy, if it good in that situation that might be the closer.
Thanks,
Diderot.
The 17-55 is really the one designed for my general photographic needs - with a smidgeon more reach and a smidgeon better performance at low light than the 17-35 (well maybe more than just a little better at 2.8).
One thing you said that struck me is that the 17-35 is great for you in the studio when you're up close. Boy, if it good in that situation that might be the closer.
Thanks,
Diderot.
Yes, if it wasn't for that quality control problem, particularly "the 17 mm focus at infinity" problem, I would have purchased the 17-55 2.8 a month ago without a second thought, at the same time I bought a new camera. As it is, I started thinking about the 17-35.
When you say for "faraway things" all three lenses do about the same, it sounds like you believe the 17-55 can really give you an excellent landscape "about as good" as the 17-35 (or are you just comparing them both to the 18-70?) - and that the 17-55 really performs great in situations you're likely to find in weddings, that is in that wide variety of situations where you need excellent "people" pics.
Leo, did you say what kind of pics you usually take and which of the 17-X lenses you own? In one post you said you would go with the 17-35 for landscapes and 17-55 for people pics. BUT, If you could only have one to cover all your shooting situations, which would you prefer for use with a D2X?
Diderot
When you say for "faraway things" all three lenses do about the same, it sounds like you believe the 17-55 can really give you an excellent landscape "about as good" as the 17-35 (or are you just comparing them both to the 18-70?) - and that the 17-55 really performs great in situations you're likely to find in weddings, that is in that wide variety of situations where you need excellent "people" pics.
Leo, did you say what kind of pics you usually take and which of the 17-X lenses you own? In one post you said you would go with the 17-35 for landscapes and 17-55 for people pics. BUT, If you could only have one to cover all your shooting situations, which would you prefer for use with a D2X?
Diderot
This is a very complected situation for me to choose of these two lenses by mix up the problem of the QC problem, camera can't correct focus at infinity, shooting situations, focal length of the lens .... At this complected situation, you will hear some people said the 17-35 is better than the 17-55 and some people said the 17-55 is better. Finally I chose 17-55. The 17-35 is borrow from my friend. I think both lenses are top of the class and the one of Nikon's best lens.
If I only have one lens to cover all my shooting situations, I will consider what I will shoot most. If I shoot landscapes most I will go for 17-35, if I shoot event and people most I will go for 17-55.
For the people photo shooting from 17mm to 35mm range the performance of two lenses are very close, the 36mm - 55mm range for the 17-55 that is importance for people shooting. The 17-55 perform very good at this range, even it as sharp as my 85f1.4.
For the landscapes shooting, because of "the 17 mm focus at infinity" problem, I don't know when will I get the correct focus images. If I use the 17-35 I just step down to f8 or f11, I sure I can get a sharp at infinity images, for the 17-55 (or any DX lens) step down doesn't help a lot.
If your camera don't have the "focus at infinity" problem whatever you use which lens you will get a sharp image. Only you can see the difference when you do some test like I did for these lenses.
--
Leo L
David Grabowski
Veteran Member
Sure,
If you don't ever intend to shoot film or full frame, I suggest you just buy the 17-55. You will never regret it, it's a pisser lens. It will do your Grand Canyon photos too. DSLRs give all the DOF you can use by F8, the 17-55 doesn't really fall off on sharpness at F8, it just isn't any better than at say 3.5. It will fall off a bit from F11 on but it's still sharper than many lenses out there that have shot the Grand Canyon !!!!
Just for your information though, it will show some CA in very adversed light conditions with super high contrast ( tree branches against a bright blue winter sky and sun at low angle of attack from the side for instance). You wouldn't think it in a lens of this cost, but it's real ! Do a query or search for that matter, on CA, you will get lot's of answers.
David
If you don't ever intend to shoot film or full frame, I suggest you just buy the 17-55. You will never regret it, it's a pisser lens. It will do your Grand Canyon photos too. DSLRs give all the DOF you can use by F8, the 17-55 doesn't really fall off on sharpness at F8, it just isn't any better than at say 3.5. It will fall off a bit from F11 on but it's still sharper than many lenses out there that have shot the Grand Canyon !!!!
Just for your information though, it will show some CA in very adversed light conditions with super high contrast ( tree branches against a bright blue winter sky and sun at low angle of attack from the side for instance). You wouldn't think it in a lens of this cost, but it's real ! Do a query or search for that matter, on CA, you will get lot's of answers.
David
Diderot
The 17-35 was my choice, after lots and lots of deliberation. There's no doubt of its capabilities for landscapes - I'm not sure if any fast zoom can compete. It's not bad for people photography either - I was in Africa recently, and used it extensively for people phtotography. Yes, the reach is a bit of a limitation, but I managed some very decent crops. A couple of examples below
I for one am an ardent fan of the 17-35.
jtank
The 17-35 was my choice, after lots and lots of deliberation. There's no doubt of its capabilities for landscapes - I'm not sure if any fast zoom can compete. It's not bad for people photography either - I was in Africa recently, and used it extensively for people phtotography. Yes, the reach is a bit of a limitation, but I managed some very decent crops. A couple of examples below
I for one am an ardent fan of the 17-35.
jtank
HitsOfMisses
Leading Member
Leo: "One more thing you need to know is the 17-55 that I used for the test images is the 4th copy. The 1-3 are all have left/right side soft problem. I need to wait for four months to got a good one. That why you seen some people said the 17-55 not sharp as the 18-70. So you may consider you may got a bad copy of 17-55."
Leo,
Can you please tell me exactly how did you test your 17-55 along with some samples?
I bought a 17-55 for weddings photography, a few weeks back. I did a basic test in different light situations & compared the result against 28-70. The copy I received did not have any such issues. (or atleast, that's what I thought)
However, I'm quite eager to know your test methodology to ensure that I covered all the ground.
--
Warm Regards,
HitsOfMisses
Leo,
Can you please tell me exactly how did you test your 17-55 along with some samples?
I bought a 17-55 for weddings photography, a few weeks back. I did a basic test in different light situations & compared the result against 28-70. The copy I received did not have any such issues. (or atleast, that's what I thought)
However, I'm quite eager to know your test methodology to ensure that I covered all the ground.
--
Warm Regards,
HitsOfMisses
Nice pics, Jtank.
I still haven't decided between the advantages of these two lenses. But indecisiveness may be a plus in some situations. If I had just jumped on the 17-55 even after hearing of some quality control problems, I might have lost out. Landscape photos I've seen by Ron Resnick and others have a clarity and sharpness using the 17-35 that I definitely envy. The question is whether Ron and these others could have gotten the same with the 17-55.
"Nearly the same" doesn't cut it when you're depending on ultimate sharpness to create the impact of a landscape photo.
Thanks,
Diderot
I still haven't decided between the advantages of these two lenses. But indecisiveness may be a plus in some situations. If I had just jumped on the 17-55 even after hearing of some quality control problems, I might have lost out. Landscape photos I've seen by Ron Resnick and others have a clarity and sharpness using the 17-35 that I definitely envy. The question is whether Ron and these others could have gotten the same with the 17-55.
"Nearly the same" doesn't cut it when you're depending on ultimate sharpness to create the impact of a landscape photo.
Thanks,
Diderot
Leo,
You wrote that "If your camera don't have the "focus at infinity" problem whatever you use which lens you will get a sharp image."
So, if I just make very sure my copy focuses sharp, then I'd be better off with a 17-55. Looks like I'll be buying from local camera stores and shooting some tests before I buy.
Like I say, I am considering 17-35 for its landscape sharpness, but the 17-55 may be able to give a good photographer the same. I think I'll search to find any tremendous photographers shooting landscape with the 17-55. If I find some great sharp, sharp, sharp pics taken of mountains/Grand Canyon with the 17-55, I'll know this is the one for me. (Unfortunately, few sample pics on Pbase show landscape with 17-55 and those have lots of leafy forests etc). I'll look some more.
Thanks,
Diderot
You wrote that "If your camera don't have the "focus at infinity" problem whatever you use which lens you will get a sharp image."
So, if I just make very sure my copy focuses sharp, then I'd be better off with a 17-55. Looks like I'll be buying from local camera stores and shooting some tests before I buy.
Like I say, I am considering 17-35 for its landscape sharpness, but the 17-55 may be able to give a good photographer the same. I think I'll search to find any tremendous photographers shooting landscape with the 17-55. If I find some great sharp, sharp, sharp pics taken of mountains/Grand Canyon with the 17-55, I'll know this is the one for me. (Unfortunately, few sample pics on Pbase show landscape with 17-55 and those have lots of leafy forests etc). I'll look some more.
Thanks,
Diderot
Hi David,
My research tells me the 17-55 can even be used on full frame to give you a field of view of about 28-55 mm. I will most likely pick up an extreme wide angle (Nikon or Tokina 12-24 or perhaps even the Sigma 10-20), at some point and I have a 70-200 2.8 VR for the other end.
So the 17-55 would have some utility, even with full frame.
However, since I just bought a D2x, I don't anticipate buying any more cameras for quite a while.
Diderot
My research tells me the 17-55 can even be used on full frame to give you a field of view of about 28-55 mm. I will most likely pick up an extreme wide angle (Nikon or Tokina 12-24 or perhaps even the Sigma 10-20), at some point and I have a 70-200 2.8 VR for the other end.
So the 17-55 would have some utility, even with full frame.
However, since I just bought a D2x, I don't anticipate buying any more cameras for quite a while.
Diderot
Phil Youngblood
Veteran Member
and from your other posts in this thread that seems to be the case, then the 17-35 is the lens you want -- no question. The 17-55 is designed as a PJ lens for 1.5X cams so does a better job on closer targets and on the wide end of the aperture scale. There is no way a lens in excess of 3X zoom can be as sharp on distant targets as one of 2X. I use my 17-55 in a wide range of applications mostly geared towards people and events and my wide landscape use is only around 20% or so. That makes the 17-55 perfect for my use -- I would be too limited by the 17-35 -- and I can easily accept the small sharpness loss on distant landscapes. If your intended use is primarily landscapes, get the 17-35 and don't look back. It is better suited to the task. You will probably want to supplement it with a prime in the 50 to 85 range for those times when 35 is not enough. In short, there is no perfect "all in one" lens.
Phil
Phil
For the first three copies I use this method to test the 17-55. Find some far(say > 200ft) object/building that can fill the four corners of the image, if you can't found, test two or three corners one time and then up side down the camera to test other corners. I also suggest you must test it at 17mm f2.8, it is much easy to see if it have problem. One more thing is make sure your camera can focus to infinity, otherwise use MF or zoom to 35mm then focus and switch to MF then turn to 12mm and shoot.
Before I have the 4th copy(the good one) I found that if I put the 17-55 to a film SLR body, the black area of four corners are not even. The corner have more black area is the corner that have the soft problem, so I ask Nikon to use this method to found a good one from the coming shipment. They told me that they found two good copies from the shipment (but they don't tell me how many they tested) and ask me to choose one. Finally I got a good one.
--
Leo L
Hmmm... I have to figure out which is most important to me, landscapes or the journalist endeavors of my vocation. One., landscapes, I currently never do but is a real challenge that I would like to be able to do. It's always been my impression that you really can't get those pics without a super sharp wide angle lens and lots of depths of field (think about Ansel Adam's and the "f64" club). I'd hate to buy a new $1,200-1,300 lens and find out I may as well stay away from an entire area of photography until I buy another one in that same range.
I am an editor, so the bulk of my work centers around the often low-light people pics - if I decide my vocation is the chief reason for this lens purchase.
BTW, You mention a lens in the 50-85 mm range. I have a 50 1.8 and also a 90mm 2.8 Tamron macro that is supposed to be excellent for portraits, although I haven't used it for this. My 70-200 2.8 VR (love it!) handles some of these people pic situations, too.
Maybe I need to be thinking about choosing one of these two lenses along with a bargain basement used or third party "second" lens solution for the gap that is created. Wonder if there is a tremendous 17mm prime out there for landscapes, or an inexpensive but good continuous 2.8 zoom for people pics.
Thanks
Diderot
I am an editor, so the bulk of my work centers around the often low-light people pics - if I decide my vocation is the chief reason for this lens purchase.
BTW, You mention a lens in the 50-85 mm range. I have a 50 1.8 and also a 90mm 2.8 Tamron macro that is supposed to be excellent for portraits, although I haven't used it for this. My 70-200 2.8 VR (love it!) handles some of these people pic situations, too.
Maybe I need to be thinking about choosing one of these two lenses along with a bargain basement used or third party "second" lens solution for the gap that is created. Wonder if there is a tremendous 17mm prime out there for landscapes, or an inexpensive but good continuous 2.8 zoom for people pics.
Thanks
Diderot
Phil Youngblood
Veteran Member
Trade-offs make life tough, huh! Landscapes at 17MM with the 17-55 are more than acceptable -- much better than the kit lens, etc. The thing is they are better with the 17-35 but it doesn't have the range needed for PJ work. In the PJ arena, the 17-35 then becomes the "acceptable" lens but not optimum. You have a decision to make. 
I use my 70-200 for landscapes more than the 17-55 -- I have a preference for "tight" landscapes. When shooting film, a 70/80-200 class lens was my PREFERRED landscape lens but the crop factor makes that a little more difficult. You may want to get the 17-55 for your PJ work and take a look at one of the 12-24s for landscapes. I always thought a 12-24, the 28-70, and the 70-200 would be the killer set. The 17-55 changed my mind and kept me from dropping another $1000 for the 12-24 because the wide end of the 17-55 is acceptable for me. May not be for you.
Once again, there is no perfect all-in-one lens. If you go with one lens in this range, you must accept some level of compromise. If you want the best of both worlds, you have to spend both monies. Surely Nikon wouldn't plan it that way, would they?
Phil
I use my 70-200 for landscapes more than the 17-55 -- I have a preference for "tight" landscapes. When shooting film, a 70/80-200 class lens was my PREFERRED landscape lens but the crop factor makes that a little more difficult. You may want to get the 17-55 for your PJ work and take a look at one of the 12-24s for landscapes. I always thought a 12-24, the 28-70, and the 70-200 would be the killer set. The 17-55 changed my mind and kept me from dropping another $1000 for the 12-24 because the wide end of the 17-55 is acceptable for me. May not be for you.
Once again, there is no perfect all-in-one lens. If you go with one lens in this range, you must accept some level of compromise. If you want the best of both worlds, you have to spend both monies. Surely Nikon wouldn't plan it that way, would they?
Phil
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum