17-35 vs 17-55

shimishake

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

Nikonguy

I think it depends how often you use the 36-55 range of the 17-55 that the 17-35 doesn't have. The 17-55 on DX is a better walk-around focal length range than the 17-35 would be. There are other options you could pursue depending on your needs and budget. Holding onto a gem like the 17-55 for your DX camera doesn't seem like a bad idea either, and then you would treat the desire for wide angle on FX as a separate problem to solve.

shimishake

when i think about it thoroughly, i guess it's better to keep the 17-55 and "treat the desire for wide angle on FX as a separate problem to solve."

thanks !

Neil vN

I loved my 17-55mm f/2.8 (before the D3 was released.)

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.