Welcome to the forum!
As an adjunct to the Tangents blog, the intention with this forum is to answer any questions, and allow a diverse discussion of topics related photography. With that, see it as an open invitation to just climb in and start threads and to respond to any threads.
i'm currently shooting with the 17-55 on my DX camera and also using a FF camera (with other lenses).
i really want a wide angle lens but dont want to find myself juggling with to many lenses.
i figured out that if i will replace the 17-55 with a 17-35, i will get the advantages of:
1. the 17-35 will behave on my DX camera almost like the 17-55
2. on my FF camera i will get a true wide angle lens
my questions are, does the 17-35 can replace the 17-55 ? what are the differences between them ?
any reasons why should i prefer one over the other ?
i usually shoot landscapes and small family events in dim-light conditions
any help/ opinion will be welcome
Comments
thanks !
I would hesitate though to recommend a DX lens to someone who has a full-frame camera in the camera bag. It limits your options. So the 17-55mm lens has a more normal range on the DX body, but it is about the same range as the regular 24-70mm lens.
So I would recommend the 17-35mm f/2.8 lens, and if you need a more normal range, the 24-70
All this makes the DX lens and camera more superfluous in a final system.