17-35 vs 12-24

[Jonathan]

Ok, my dad is looking at a new lens and I am at a loss of what to recommend. He has a d200 and 18-70, 85 1.4, 80-400 VR. he shoots just about everything but birds/wildlife and travels alot. He has been meaning to replace his kit lens for awhile for speed etc. He has evaluated some of his images and does does have around 15-20% shot at 18mm from his kit lens. Now personally I would get the 17-35 and stitch a pano when needed...but we are different. He is eventually looking at a 12-24, 28-70 and 70-200. I would like to suggest the 17-35 instead but am unsure if it will be wide enough for him. From my understanding the optics of the 17-35 is better. I have also played with both and there is just that magical feel to the 17-35.

Thoughts.. is my rambling coherent?

[Keith]

actually have to agree with you Jonathan :rolleyes: because I did luv the 28-70mm so much, I did compliment it with the 12-24mm. I liked the nikon better, accepts filters, it is sharp, the feel is no 17-35mm but price was right. Cliff I believe has one for sale :)

[MGlennn]

I have a 17-35 and it is really nice :) :) :)

Lisa has the 17-55 and likes it :D :D :D

[Rudi]

If he is eventually looking at getting the 12-24mm, then that is the first that I would buy - his longer range is covered at the moment, he is lacking at the wide end. Once he has the 12-24mm, he can then get himself the 28-70, and be most of the way there. :)

[Desert Rat]

Well I have had both lenses.. I had the 17-35mm when i shot film and sold it (difficult) when i switched to digital since with the crop factor it overlapped with other lenses I had...

The 17-35 is a pig of a lens at f/2.8 AFS.. Sharp as a tack though...

I now use the 12-24mm instead and like this lens just as much.. Don't need the extra stop you get with the 17-35mm...
Also the 12-24 is a lot lighter in carry around weight...

I currently have the same lens lineup that you are looking at 12-24, 28-70 and 70-200.. works perfectly for a nice compact system....

[Lisa]

I agree with Rudi 100%. I have both the 17-55DX and the 12-24DX. I bought the 17-55 before the 12-24 and had I done it the other way around, I would have bought the 28-70 and ONLY because I have some overlap here.

The reason I went on and bought the 12-24 is because I really wanted more on the wide end.....I am very happy with both lenses.

[Jonathan]

thanks guys. He is looking wide so I will recommend the 12-24.

Eric what do you mean by pig of a lens at 2.8?

[Desert Rat]

thanks guys. He is looking wide so I will recommend the 12-24.

Eric what do you mean by pig of a lens at 2.8?

It is a heavy lens for its size....

[CrystallP]

Sorry for the late reply Jonathan, (I have been playing with eagles for the last few weeks). So, what did you father decide upon? I am really interested because I currently have the 12-24, 28-70, 70-200 lineup. I am seriously considering the 17-35 in lieu of the 12-24. I think the range and speed will work better with my updated style...yes, I am expanding my interest beyond flowers (gasp).

[Jonathan]

Thanks eric! He walks around with the 80-400 so I don't think he will mind too much.

Crystal, he is still deciding. Both my father and I pre-plan a good bit in advance:biglaugh: :biglaugh: will let you know.

[Kevin]

I probably can't contribute a whole lot but I'll say a few things. I got to try out the 17-35 and it is a great lens. Personally I like a lens with a bit more substance. Just feels better in the hand. Not that it's likely to happen too soon but the 17-35 is not DX and will work with full frame.

I've never tried the Nikon 12-24 but always hear good things about it. An alternative might be the Tokina 12-24/f4. That lens I did try out and it was really nice. The build is quite substantial and the image quality very good. It's also considerably less expensive than the Nikon equivalent.

[Jonathan]

I probably can't contribute a whole lot but I'll say a few things. I got to try out the 17-35 and it is a great lens. Personally I like a lens with a bit more substance. Just feels better in the hand. Not that it's likely to happen too soon but the 17-35 is not DX and will work with full frame.

I've never tried the Nikon 12-24 but always hear good things about it. An alternative might be the Tokina 12-24/f4. That lens I did try out and it was really nice. The build is quite substantial and the image quality very good. It's also considerably less expensive than the Nikon equivalent.

Have to agree with you Kevin. If it were me I would easily pick the 17-35 instead. That being said my father knows my take on this but I am not sure the same lens would suit him best. Time will tell as he is still deciding...thanks all