Well, I've just spent way too much time testing these two lenses. Using a tripod and SB-800, I shot pictures of a wall-to-wall/floor-to-ceiling bookshelf from 12 feet away, and foliage from about 100 feet away from the same spot for both lenses, and at all apertures (also tested the 28/1.4 and the 28-70/2.8 while I was at it).
I don't mean to upset anyone, but this what I found: my copy of the 17-35 is better than the 17-55 lens I have from 17mm - 28mm AT ALL FOCAL LENGTHS (f2.8 and up). At 35mm, the 17-55 gets sharper than the 17-35 - more so at f2.8, but by f11 they are about the same again.
As this went against current received opinion about the 17-55 being "sharper" than the 17-35 from f2.8-f4, I tested again and again to see if was going crazy. Same results every time.
Now, before people start saying I have a bad sample of the 17-55 (which may well be the case), I have to say that I used the 17-55 for a few days just to take some regular day to day shots. The results were really quite stunning. Technically it's very good - ie., sharp and great color rendition. The focal range is perfect. This is a great lens - no doubt about it. If I hadn't used the 17-35 I would have been more than happy with it. But I have also did some day to day shooting with the 17-35, and I have to say it yielded more pictures which have that undescribable "wow" factor, an ethereal quality which you see with a lot of pictures taken with the 85/1.4. I don't know - maybe I have a bad 17-55 or a frighteningly good 17-35, but what I see is what I see.
I've had a few days obsessing over which one to keep (not a nice place to be), but finally I've decided once and for all, after carefully looking at all the pictures I've taken over the last week with these two lenses, that the 17-35 is staying and the 17-55 has to find another home.
This decision seems to go against logic. The 17-55 has the extra 20mm and is cheaper. But for me the qualities of the 17-35 more than make up for this. (Build quality is beter too) And frankly, I'm not a wedding photographer and for the type of photography I do, the 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 are usually great. I was looking for a very sharp wide angle lens, and the 17-35 looks like it's the ticket.
Other things I found during the course of the testing:
1. I could make the 17-55 flare quite easily by pointing it at a my spotlight table lamp (a white haze over the entire frame). Not so with the 17-35.
2. In exactly the same lighting conditions, zoomed in at 100% the 17-35 pictures look slightly cleaner in places. Zooming in to 300% I could see what looked like more noise in the 17-55 images. These pictures where at ISO100 with an SB-800. My theory is that the 17-35 has more resolving power, so the D200 processor has to do less extrapolation between color gradations. That's just my theory.
3. Harder to find CA in images taken with the 17-35 than with the 17-55.
Well, that's what I found. Like I said - don't mean to upset anyone. Sample variations can go both ways sometimes. I'm sure some copies of the 17-55 would wipe the floor with other copies of the 17-35. But I'm more than happy with my 17-35. It's unfortunate - but thats the way it is with top lenses (leica and voigtlander have the same problems).
Finally, I agree with Bjørn Rørslett in his review of the 17-55 when he says "Under direct side-by-side comparison with the 17-35 and 28-70 Nikkors, the new DX lens gives virtually identical results to these old champions in the longer range of each of them (28 to 35mm and 35 to 55 mm, respectively)." From my tests, I would add that from 17-28, the 17-35 lens is better.
Long live the king.
--
-NG
