where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
First post here, hello everyone.
It's been a tough decision regarding my 17-55 after going FX (D3s)
I still own my DX (D300s) as a back up and now my 17-55 became redundant.
Unless I use both cameras separately on the same occasion, I almost sure I won't need the 17-55.
It makes more sense to get a 16-35... but it's just heart breaking to lose f/2.8 and focal length.
Thanks!
Gary
Why not the 24-70 or something? You didn't mention what you shoot...so kind of hard to make any recommendations. Obviously the 17-55 isn't of much use on the FX body.
If you want that same range I think there is only a 2 lens answer for FX shooters...unless you get a third party lens.
If you still want f/2.8 then you might have to fork over almost $2000 for the 17-35mm. Although I don't own it I've read that the 16-35mm f/4 might actually be just as sharp with less weight. I got lucky and grabbed a flawless Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 from an Ebay seller and saved $400 off the "new" price. It's bulky but I love the results from that lens. Perhaps you can stick a 24mm or 35mm prime on the D300S as an exclusive setup. On the other hand perhaps you can stick a 70-200mm f/2.8 or 70-300mm on the D300S for distance if you think you'd actually want to carry 2 cameras.
16-35 is not even close to the sharpness of 17-55, in Your case I would sell the 17-55 and get 24-70 (as I presume d3s will be Your main body). getting a prime for Your d300s is also a good idea, 35/1.8 is so inexpensive and so good at the same time.
Tokina came out with 16-28mm 2.8 for fx format. Might wanna check that out as well.
gariiiii said:
Unless I use both cameras separately on the same occasion, I almost sure I won't need the 17-55.
It makes more sense to get a 16-35... but it's just heart breaking to lose f/2.8 and focal length.Thanks!
Gary
You own a D3s, you have nothing to worry about by losing a few stops with the 16-35. Seriously.
I don't see you loosing much from F2.8 to F4 on a D300s when you consider everything.
DX = Less bokeh anyway
Wide 2.8 vs 4 for bokeh - difference in focus distance at 6' is an added foot (20mm - in focus are = 4' @2.8 5'@4)
VR off sets the low light hand holding
You do loose the 35-55mm range though.
It comes down to how you use each camera and if you want a wide angle for your D3s.
I have never been a fan of f4 lenses and would never give up an f2.8 for one.
I would add a vote for the 17-35. Granted, you do lose a little range on the long end, but it's a sharp/fast lens. Recently found a very well-cared for used version for a pretty reasonable price and we're very happy together. I've also seen several copies for sale at Adorama that are purportedly in pretty good shape. I'm guessing that a lot of people who like to have the latest and greatest — seduced by the sharpness of the 16-35 — are making that switch. Just one man's humble pov.
Thanks everyone for the reply.
Forget to mention... I have a 24-70.
So a 16-35 can either be a midrange for my DX and wide angle for my FX.
Hmmm... Tough one.
Replaced the 16-35 with a 17-35. Decision based on f/2.8, metal/plastic, shorter. No regrets whatsoever....love the 17-35 it's perfect!
I have the 16 -35 f 4 VR . Most of the time its used for interiors, so it is often stopped down and used with flash
But if I cannot use flash (or a tripod) I use ISO 1600 (noise taken out with LR3)
If you are happy shooting at ISO 1600 the f4 limit my not be a problem
My next lens "up" is the 24- 120 f4 VR so I have got used to being limited to f4
I do have a 50mm 1.4, but hardy ever use it
Hey welcome to the forum! :) I really like the advice on here regarding the purchase of the 24-70 for you. The lens is simply amazing and does so many things plus of course you'd retain the 2.8 speed. 24mm is still quite wide on FX and I really think you'd be very happy with this lens. However, it will cost more than the 17-35mm (maybe an extra $300-400) so you would have to consider this as well.
Ill root for the 24-70mm f/2.8 too. I prefer the 17-35mm f/2.8 however as it wider...
You must log in to post.
