LOL

"Spray",..stick to photography,..not funny.

Len Dilema? I knew that guy - didn't he have a brother called Ivor Dilemma?

poster said:
Yeah I meant to say that when he moves to FX. That was a typo.

Wait, now as far as I understand it, DX lenses are meant for smaller sensor cameras, therefore, there's no crop factor involved.

17-35mm is an FX lens, so with the crop factor, it's coverage crop would be more to 25-52mm

There is always a crop factor because of the sensor (the angle of view across the sensor). The DX lenses have an image circle that is large enough to cover an APS-C sensor fully, but not an FX sensor (there is vignetting). The alternative to the 17-35 f2.8 FX lens is the new 16-35 f4 VR which is less expensive than the 17-35mm f2.8 and is receiving good reviews. (I do like my 17-35mm f2.8 though. If I were buying such a lens right now, I would give consideration to the f4 unless I needed the additional speed of the 17-35mm.

Okay that makes more sense. Thanks for clearing this up.

poster said:
Yeah I meant to say that when he moves to FX. That was a typo.

Wait, now as far as I understand it, DX lenses are meant for smaller sensor cameras, therefore, there's no crop factor involved.

17-35mm is an FX lens, so with the crop factor, it's coverage crop would be more to 25-52mm

This isn't how it works. Focal length is a physical property of the lens. What the lens is projecting onto doesn't change the number. What does change is how much of the image the lens projects gets recorded. The DX sensor records a smaller angle of view than the FX sensor. The reason people talk about crop factors and "effective focal lengths" is basically a shortcut. If you put a 17mm lens on a DX camera, and a 25mm lens on an FX camera, you will see a very similar field of view, but the two lenses still have different focal lengths.

Effectively, if you want to compare what an image will look like on DX vs. FX, you always have to apply the crop factor. A 17mm lens that is designated DX is still a 17mm lens, but on an FX camera there will be serious vignetting (the corners will be very dark).

Considering that most of your photography revolves around indoor events, I would recommend the first path. I too do a lot of event photography and most of pictures come around the long end. The second most come around the wide end. I work in very fast environments so I don't have time to swap between different lenses. My set-up consists of a 17-55 that I use 95% of the time during events. I have a 50mm 1.4 that I use primarily for portraits. And also a 80-200 2.8 for sports and theater. I used to have a 35mm 1.8, however I found that I never used it since my 17-55 covered that length, and 35mm is too short for most standard portraits. Hope this helps.

the difference in the size of the DX sensor and FX sensor.

@poster : re crop factor ... Huh ??

sorry double post

Yeah I meant to say that when he moves to FX. That was a typo.

Wait, now as far as I understand it, DX lenses are meant for smaller sensor cameras, therefore, there's no crop factor involved.

17-35mm is an FX lens, so with the crop factor, it's coverage crop would be more to 25-52mm

poster said:
I would go with the 17-55. It won't lose it's value if you have to resell it, when you move to the DX.

17-35 is a dx lens, therefore you need to account for the lens crop factor in it's viewing coverage.

I think you might be confusing FX and DX. The 17-55 is a DX lens, and the 17-35 is FX. Accounting for the crop factor applies to any lens, though. Both lenses are 17mm on the wide end, which is the same thing whether the lens is DX or FX.

If you are planning on going FX any time soon, definitely get the 17-35 and 50 if you can afford the extra cost. If you aren't, I'd say the 17-55 and 35 are a better option, since you get a better range on your zoom, and the 35 tends to be better than the 50 for indoor shooting; the 50 is too long for many shots on DX. That being said, your best bet is to try stuff out if you can.

Finally, I'm not sure what you mean by D lenses being "more fun?" The autofocus is via the in-body motor, so they tend to be slower and louder than AF-S (not always true, but I think for the D90 this will almost always be the case). They do have aperture rings, but I don't know if the D90 allows you to use the ring rather than the in-body dials.

I would go with the 17-55. It won't lose it's value if you have to resell it, when you move to the DX.

17-35 is a dx lens, therefore you need to account for the lens crop factor in it's viewing coverage.

Honestly I would pick the first route. Makes more sense for a DX shooter. For now, you are a DX shooter, unless you are going to upgrade to FX within 6 months there's no point in getting the 17-35mm. Nikon lenses hold good value. And DX isn't going anywhere,it's not like it's going to go "puff" and disappear instantly, making the it harder for you to sell your DX lenses.

Its certainly a reasonable solution, and it might work great for you.

It really depends what focal lengths you shoot at. I would hate this combo, as i frequently move around from 18 to 100-ish. (mt 18-55 and 55-200 get switch VERY often).

Getting a 17-35 now might be looking to far ahead in my opinion. The core question is what is your timeframe for going FX? If you plan on getting a D700(s) soon, then fine. But your enjoyment of photography might suffer in the short term.

But like i said initially, if you tend to not move around the focal range too much, the combo is fine.

It's best to try out the lenses for yourself GTR. Everyone has an opinion but the only one that matters is what YOU think is right for YOU.

For me, I wouldn't buy anymore DX lens and I'd stick to FX glass. That way I have a choice to use either DX or FX cameras.

You can read up on different zoom lenses here:

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_00.html

Hi all,

Couple days ago, i posted a thread for recommendation on my purchase of D90 + 17-55. You guys were so nice and asked me to try the Tarmon 17-50 (with or without VC), and Nikkor 16-85. However, this morning i was having a chat with one of my wife's friend, who is also a Nikon user, trying to get some recommendation from him as well. And his recommendation is completely a new picture for me.

Here is my initial thought on the lens upgrade path
D90 + 17-55, 35 f1.8 and later get the 70-200 and TC.

His recommendation
D90 + 17-35, 50 f1.8 and later get the 70-200 and TC.

His explanation is as follow:
1. if i am willing to spend the money on 17-55, why not getting 17-35 which is $300 more. And the missing 20mm, can be recovered by the 50 f1.8. and probably a few steps
2. I can keep this lens even going to FX (Not sure how worse is my NAS)
3. It will be more fun with the 17-35 and 50 f1.8 since both are D lens

My Shooting Style:
1. 40% Indoor event (flash may not be allowed in some cases)
2. 20% Pets and Kids
3. 20% Family Portrait
4. 10% Street and Night Photography
5. 10% Wildlife

Questions:
1. Which path you will pick without the money factor?
2. If i picked his recommendation, will i miss something from what i initially planning to get??
3. I haven't done any research on 17-35. How is it compare with the 17-55 in these aspects: Optics, build quality and IQ?

Thanks