This is one of those questions
I'm asked via e-mail or in the street very often by many
photographers, especially by new comers. Well, let me be bluntly
straight, they are both great lenses, there is no doubt about it.
First, I have observed that the 17-35 AFS is often addressed as a
''Landscape lens''. True, but it is a more effective landscape lens
when used on a 24x36mm format camera rather than on a 1.5x crop
factor Nikon DSLR camera where it becomes a 25-52mm lens. To overcome
this, Nikon designed and granted us with a Nikkor 12-24 F/4 for the
equivalent of a 17-35 on a so called Nikon ''full frame'' DSLR. Yes I
know, the Nikon 12-24 is the equivalent focal
length of a 17-35, but it is not
an F/2.8 lens. F/2.8 might have some meaning for some friends, but
not too me in landscapes. When I had my 17-35, I seldom used it if
not at all this lens for landscapes wide-open at F/2.8. So the 12-24
being F/4 is not a problem to me at all. At this point I must be
clear, I'm no saying the 12-24 is the 17-35 AFS replacement, it is
the equivalent in terms of focal length and I believe Nikon is quite
clear about it too. The price of the Nikon 12-24 compared to the
Nikon 17-35 might give us a hint.
My choice wasn't clear in the
beginning, coming from film, the crop factor was like a cultural
clash. I used my Nikon 17-35 AFS for my landscapes, but my everyday
lens was a 28-xx in various brand flavors including Nikkors. When the
Nikon 17-55 was announced, my wish came true. It is a 25.5-82 lens
making it very versatile, this lens does the job of a 17-35 in terms
of length and almost reaches the boundaries of a Nikkor 28-70 AF-S in
just one package. And that's what most photographers myself included
like, versatility.
The debate: ''but the 17-35 is
better for landscapes than the 17-55''. This in my personal
opinion has some trueness. But let's see, I've taken beautiful
landscape pictures with my 17-55 around F/13. At F/13 the 17-35
performs marginally better, not for a big difference if you notice
any at all. Above that, the 17-35 is a better performer than the
17-55 but again, not for a lot. From F/13 and up, we are in the wrong
territory, we are in the diffraction's domain. The extra sharpness
gained when stopping down the 17-35, has little practical benefit
IMHO and experience compared to the 17-55 at least on a DX crop
factor camera.
The dreaded flare: Yes I was
concerned about it too. But it is not that bad, especially those with
fond feelings towards the 17-35 usually inflate the flare issue on
the web. Does the 17-55 has flare problems? The answer is yes, but
again, nothing to punish yourself and make your choice harder on you.
Just look at the sample pictures below, the lens was literally facing
the sun and trust me, there is no flare at all in the original files.
I have dozens of pictures in situations like this, I promise I'll
post more of them soon for your reference.
FF vs DX: Indeed the 17-55 is a
DX lens and can't be used in the future should Nikon releases a D3*
which is rumored to be full frame. Nevertheless, FF is not for
everybody at least during the introduction period. The price of a
Nikon full frame camera might keep some users off for a while. I also
believe that the crop factor is here to stay for a very long time, at
least for a while I'll be using what I have at the moment.
Bottomline:
If you are an event shooter or
simply looking for the best all-around lens, the Nikon 17-55 is a
great choice. It is very sharp wide open as it is contrasty. Pictures
taken with this lens requires little sharpening during post
processing. Are you planning to shoot events at F/13 and up? I don't
think so; you need wide apertures during events and this is where
this lens shines. I have to say that it performs better at 2.8 than
my old 17-35 at the same setting. Needless to say, I no longer own a
17-35, I can't justify both of them since I have the best of both
worlds with it. Did I mention those extra 20mm are very welcome?
Not all, but the vast majority of Nikon pros are shooting with the
17-55 AFS. Yes, we loose the ability to use it with a possible Nikon
full frame camera, there are trade-offs. Just shoot with the best
available right now and lets forget about what Nikon is cooking,
that's their job, not ours. I might sound like I'm biased towards
this lens but honestly, I am not. I moved with the digital flow and
don't regret it a bit. If you insist, the 17-35 might serve you well.
* UDAPTE:
Nikon has
just announced the New Nikon D3
and DX lenses can be used on this 24x36 format camera, more on this soon.
