Mitch, having used both on a cropped sensor ( d70,d200,d300 ), the 17-55 is
sharp at 2.8 at close quarters. It maintains this sharpness at all fl.
The 17-35 was designed for the film system and as a wide angle for landscapes ( primarily i think ) as beyond about 5.6 it becomes stellar
on my digital nikons. at f8 it is at its best.
The 17-35 is not a bokeh champion either.
OTOH, the 17-55 represents for the croppes sensors what the 28-70
represented for film. it is primarily a pj/event lens with excellent
resolution close and medium and falls off somewhat at infinity. f8 is no better than f5.6 ( peaking for me ).
However for street shooting in low light the 2.8 is perfectly usable with
very good oof areas. it maintains this upto 6.3 - 8.
The 17-35 has very good flare control whereas the 17-55 hates bright
light sources in the frame or strong backlighting cif 17-35.
these nuances have however not deterred me from keeping it on my d300
when i just to have one lens. pair it with a 85/1.4 and you can go round the
globe...which is exactly what i have done ( 1/4 of the globe to be exact!)
besides makes an excellent portrait/fashion lens.
regards.
p.s the 17-55 with its shade is a monstrous enough to frighten little kids away, besides it extends while zooming. the 17-35
does not. Best is try both on your d300 and make the decision.
Rayyan, you don't state the reason for for which you think that the 17-55mm is better than the 17-35mm — and reading Thom Hogan's reviews, which are generally quite good, I get the opposite impressions. You may be right, but can you document this in how the 17-55 is better?
—Mitch/Tsumeb
http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/