Nikon 17-35mm or 17-55mm 2.8
Nikonians...I need your help. A friend of mine is asking me about lenses for his camera. I am a Canon girl, so Nikon is all a mystery to me. He owns a Nikon D90 (currently) and he wants a wide angle lens for doing landscapes. I suggested the 17-35mm 2.8, since I have the 16-35mm 2.8L and it is my most used (and favorite) lens for landscapes. So right now I'm looking at lens for Nikon and I see the 17-55mm 2.8 but it works for DX cameras only?:scratch So, I know that the D90 is DX format but from what I am reading online, the 17-55 on a D3 might work, but would only give you the crop factor of the D90.
The price difference between the two is not tremendous, so which lens would be the best investment? If he decides to upgrade eventually to a full frame, would it make sense to get the 17-35 now?
Any thoughts, experience, etc...anything would be helpful!
Thanks so much!
The price difference between the two is not tremendous, so which lens would be the best investment? If he decides to upgrade eventually to a full frame, would it make sense to get the 17-35 now?
Any thoughts, experience, etc...anything would be helpful!
Thanks so much!
Robyn T. Lisone
MUTTography - Modern and Fun Lifestyle Pet Photography
MUTTography | My SmugMug | Facebook | Google+
MUTTography - Modern and Fun Lifestyle Pet Photography
MUTTography | My SmugMug | Facebook | Google+
0
Comments
Yeah...but he was only really looking at the two Nikons. I'd like to know the pros and cons of each of these two.
MUTTography - Modern and Fun Lifestyle Pet Photography
MUTTography | My SmugMug | Facebook | Google+
If you're shooting landscape during the daytime... why not the 18-55?
Hi! I'm Wally: website | blog | facebook | IG | scotchNsniff
Nikon addict. D610, Tok 11-16, Sig 24-35, Nik 24-70/70-200vr
Well, he's got the 18-105 3.5-5.6 kit lens, but he was looking for 2.8 for low-light (for shooting inside abandoned buildings, etc.) But he wants a wide-angle lens...so if he takes the leap and buys the D3 in the future, wouldn't the 17-55 still give him the crop factor?
Like I said...Nikon is a mystery to me. Sorry to sound so clueless . I find Canon much easier to figure out (dunno...maybe because I've been shooting w/ Canon since 1996 )
MUTTography - Modern and Fun Lifestyle Pet Photography
MUTTography | My SmugMug | Facebook | Google+
I think the Nikon 17-55 is a killer lens on a DX sensor body. Super sharp and super fast.
The 17-55 DX lens on the FX body D3, D3s, D700 works fine but it does not give you the full sensor area. The camera sees the DX lens and uses the sensor area of the smaller DX sensor. It does work but I think you only get 6 megapixels? Maybe 8? Not sure but you loose a bunch. So DX lenses are really only for DX cameras. So it is not the lens that gives the crop factor, it is the sensor size. The DX lenses are optimized for the DX sensor.
OK...so does that mean on a D3 you'd get the full 17mm at the widest angel? You'd only be losing pixels?
MUTTography - Modern and Fun Lifestyle Pet Photography
MUTTography | My SmugMug | Facebook | Google+
Steve
MUTTography - Modern and Fun Lifestyle Pet Photography
MUTTography | My SmugMug | Facebook | Google+
moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]
I now shoot with a 5DMKII, no longer on the dark side of the force.