DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G vs. Zoom-Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D (Both AF-S IF-ED) with DX7100...

tiCreativeMedia

Hi There-

so, from a resale value, I'm trying to pick between these 2 lenses. One will work on both FX and DX, then the other is just DX. Is it crazy to think that resale is better on the FX lens?

Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX Lens

Nikon Zoom Super Wide Angle AF-S Zoom Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF Autofocus Lens

THANKS!
Dave

sevencrossing

Unless you are a secondhand camera shop or dealer

Buying a lens, base on what you might sell it for later, is indeed crazy

Get equipment based on what you need and can afford today

henrik1963

Agre with Sevencrosing - buy the best lens you can afford that covers what you want to do. Buying the second best now only leads to buying the best later on = waste of money.

Ironheart

Get the 10-24. Much more fun on DX

Golf007sd

+1 sevencrossing

I tend to lean on a lens that is FX base and has a fast aperture, ie. 2.8's. Which focal length you go with is all up to you. Having said that, I see that you are looking at wide lenses...what is your budget Dave?

Photobug

+1 for the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX Lens. Then again, been using mine for six years and its great.

Ironheart

Just remember that 17mm (25mm equiv) really isnt ultra wide on DX, which is why I suggested the 10-24.

tiCreativeMedia

@Golf007sd budget is open. I basically want to get 3 lenses to cover me for good, so spending the money up front to be set for as long as possible. I have the 35mm 1.8 for my prime. I need a Wide Angle and Telephoto to cover around that.

These were the recommendations:
Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX Lens

Nikon Zoom Super Wide Angle AF-S Zoom Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF Autofocus Lens

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Lens

So, I'm still trying to figure out what to do for wide angle. As @IronHeart mentions, I did also see that 10-24 as a lens on the Ken Rockwell site to get, but the folks at BH kept telling me to go for 17-35.

thanks-
Dave

Ironheart

To "cover for good" you should get the holy trinity minus the 14-24, and sub the 10-24 until/if/when you go FX. So that would be the 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8 and the 10-24. I personally need the 10-17 range on DX, 18 is just not wide enough for many of the shots I want. Once you have that then you can start socking in primes. Depending on what you shoot of course.

henrik1963

Open budget - 3 lens setup - sounds like the holy trinity :-) Only problem is that it does not exist for DX.

If you want to get a 70-200 2.8 VRII you could consider a 16-85. It is pretty good at the wide end and stay good to about 65 - mine did anyway. That is one way of keeping it sane. Past that you are looking at big and expensive - 14-24 2.8.

proudgeek

I shot the 17-35 on DX for a few years. But in my case I always knew that I'd upgrade to FX at some point so it was an investment. If you're fully committed to shooting DX for the foreseeable future and want something wide, the 10-24 or 12-24 are both great (I've shot with the latter but not the former) and wider than the 17-35. The 17-35 is big, heavy, and not cheap. On the long end, if money is truly no object, go out and buy yourself a new 70-200 f/2.8. It's also big and heavy, not to mention expensive. If money and weight matter a little, the 70-200 f/4 might be great.
As much as I like B&H, and I shop there frequently, I'm always a little suspicious when someone's trying to sell me on the most expensive option. Yes, the 17-35 will be sharper than the 10-24, but will it really suit your personal needs? Only you can answer that.

proudgeek

If your head is still spinning, make a list of your top three options on the wide end and rent each for a week. Bear in mind that the 17-35, the 17-55 and the 10-24/12-24 are VERY different pieces of equipment.

Golf007sd

@Davie: Thanks for the info. On the wide end for your DX body, have a look at the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X. I have played with this lens on my D7000 and it rocket. Which ever way you, stay with a lens that has constant aperture. The 24-70 & 70-200 2.8 are Awesome. Get then and don't look back.

Happy shopping...Cheers.

tiCreativeMedia

Thanks @Golf007sd. I'm definitely getting the 70-200. Now, my trick is what to get for wide angle. So much to consider! BUT I just checked BH for that Tokina, and only see it for Canon?

sevencrossing

I shoot FX and use 16 -35 a lot
If I shot Dx I would certainly want something equally wide
17 - 35 on Dx is not ultra wide, you need something like 12-24 or 11 -16

TaoTeJared

@tiCreativeMedia - your use of the term "wide" is very ambiguous. Wide angles are anything greater than 35mm (FX) by definition. So a 17-50 is considered a wide-standard zoom. Ultra wide generally refers to anything greater than 24mm (FX) that is not a fish-eye. People hear "wide" and assume ultra-wide for some reason.

70-200 is a good lens that is future proof for sure. On the rest and your question on resale... I'm just scratching my head. And sorry to have to say it, that means you don't have an "open budget" if you are worried about re-sale. It sounds like you really do not know what you actually need. It makes no since throwing good money at bad, and that is what it sounds like you are doing - or have at lease described. There is a very large difference between 17-35 & 17-55 and their intended uses.

What do you shoot with now?
What do you like to shoot?
What direction do you want your photography go?
Do you want to do video?
Do you need VR?
Does the weight of a system keep you from taking it with you?

All of those and probably 100s more questions you need to ask yourself first before buying a lens let alone worrying about re-sale. Each and every lens is designed different, and with a specific intended use. That does not mean it can't do other things (i.e. 105vr macro is also a great portrait lens) but you don't want to use a FX designed ultra-wide for a standard zoom for DX. For starters you are loosing almost 25mm worth of reach in a prime area where most photos are taken. If you are shooting DX, one really should use DX lenses to cover ultra-wide to standard zoom (10-50ish) range. When you move to FX, you will have to offload some glass, but that is just part of it.

I often hear the "I want lens/es that cover me for good" which in my head, actually means "I don't know what the hell I'm doing and am exhausted trying to figure out all the differences between lenses so will someone else just make a decision for me." It is simple, get a 18-300mm and you are set - everything is covered. I'm guessing by what you are looking at is that it's limitations affect what you want to really do, so you want something else. 12-24(DX), 17-50ish (DX), 70-200. Those three covers everything and are of high quality no matter what brand. At some point those won't do either, and then you will move into primes. We all go through that learning process, and probably never stop since we don't have a money tree in our backyard.

If you must, Tokina has great UWA (ultra wide angles) 10-24 (2.8 is really not needed in UWA), Tamron makes a great 17-50VC (vibration compensation), and a 70-200 is almost a no brainer to get. That will cover everything and not break the bank and you would have some great glass.

If you are really worried about re-sale, buy used.

Golf007sd

@tiCreativeMedia: David here is the link to B&H on the Tokina 11-16.

TTJ made some valid points; specially in this area: "If you are really worried about re-sale, buy used." In fact, 70% of all my glass, I purchased from used from a dealer or privet party. I have saved thousands of dollars this way. Should you go this route, make sure you fully understand what to look for. Ask us questions or by all mean send those you value their judgment a PM. I'm sure the member would be more than happy to assist.

MikeGunter

Hi all,

I basically want to get 3 lenses to cover me for good

@ tiCreativeMedia - If I had a lens for every time I've said that, I'd own all the lenses Nikon ever made. :-)

TTJ sort of has it right, and I'm not slighting him, but trying to say that without know what you're doing or more importantly wanting to do or, without irony, focusing on doing, it's difficult to put any perspective on which lens or lenses to recommend.

For portraits you might really want to consider another prime, a 50mm f1.4. It would dramatically reduce DOF for some of the shots you could do, a departure of any of the zooms mentioned, but something that would add significantly to your kit and allow for more distinct pictures that none of the lenses listed can take.

If you are looking to possibly go into a part-time professional route, I'd add a 105mm f2.8 micro. It has a great standoff, can also serve many functions (to include portrait, ordinary telephoto).

You can look over the photos you've taken in the past using your software and which ones you like doing the most. That should help in where you spend your money.

While I have a zoom on my camera most the time, most the pictures are made with prime lenses.

My best,

Mike

KnockKnock

Hmmm. Vicarious system building for the D7100

10-24 for wide angle
35mm f/1.8 Std
50mm f/1.4 Portrait
70-200 f/4 zoom

If you don't really need super-wide, then replace the first two with the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8.

Msmoto

If one examines the MTF charts, the DX version appears much sharper at both ends

kyoshinikon

Lots of great posts here. What do you need it for. I got he 17-35mm knowing I would go to fx like proudgeek. While my superwide of choice is a 14-24mm that is overkill. The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X is much more suited to your needs and regardless of what B&H states there is a nikon version.

The 17-55 is a dream lens but once again is overkill. The 10-24mm is pricey. While the 10.5mm is highly recommended it is a fisheye...

Paperman

@TiCreativeMedia

$4000-$5000 lens investment for a $1000 DX body ?? ... If it is just one like you indicated in the topic - maybe ... But 2 or 3 pro glasses ? I wouldn't go for it - just doesn't make sense to me ( I know it does to most of those here ). It may be hard to notice the differences between expensive glass and cheaper zooms starting with the 17-18mm focal length ( on a DX body, that is.)

I would either go for cheaper DX zooms or get one pro glass less & move to sth FF like D610 ....

kyoshinikon

If that is what he wants I feel it totally makes sense to spend 4K on glass for a D7100. The D7100 is a superb body and while not a D4 is no worse a performer than the D610 in any regards (almost the same camera excluding the sensor). There is a noticeable difference between pro glass and cheapo lenses in both optics and performance. Some of the is a reasons I only use Pro glass on my D7000 is that the Af is 10 times more accurate and the detail is crisper on a 14bit raw. While the 14-24mm runs 5 times as much as a 10-24mm it is also not just much sharper and clearer it locks onto a subject instantly. Sure it finds it way on my D700 more but I used it on exclusively Dx for 2 years...

spraynpray

@Paperman: Can you explain why you think pro glass is wasted on the D7100 over the D610? The differences between the D7100 and D610 aren't just DX/FX, there are many others which make the D7100 a better camera for many uses IMO. The only minus for FX glass on DX is the lens fl change points of 24 and 70 which are a bit clunky - especially the 24 point. Apart from that, what's not to love?

proudgeek

I had a lot more than $4,000 invested in glass for my D90.

Msmoto

I shoot a 400mm f/2.8 VRII with TC-20EIII on my D90 at times. Over $10,000 in glass out front. An article on pixel count sent by a member on NRF
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/will-the-pixel-madness-ever.html
Suggests to me the issue of DX vs. FX is primary in the mind of the beholder. Maybe one can even say DX for long shots, FX for wide landscapes….?