DSLRUsers.com

I know its been talked about here previously and beleive me I've read them all and other forums found in google.
Everyones situation differs from each other.

What its for ?
Mainly events and portraits. 90% of those events are weddings

Current Line up ?
12-24 f4
18-70 kit lense
80-200 f2.8
50f1.4

Small events I can shoot with 1 Body with the 18-70
More important events I shoot with 2 digital bodies, so am trying to figure out what would benefit me most.

Option1
17-55 and 80-200

Option2
12-24 and a 28-70

I want minimal lense change or none if possible.

I'm finding that most of my shots on the range of 80-200 doesnt quite make it to the wedding albums. When they do its those candid moments =), but only a very selected few. i'm finding that most shots that do make it are on the wide to mid range hence the thought of Option2. Shots on the the very wide 12 rarely make it in the album either - especially some people shots on 12 is not very flattering.?

The thought of 17-55 is perfect for my liking. The gap between 55 to 80 can be covered by foot zoom, but the lense in an investment and i would plan to use these lenses for 10-15 years....I've had a 35-70f2.8 macro for about 10years now and it still proves a usable lense. I only use it now as backup as it sounds like Robocop and the AF is not as quick as my other lenses.

I know a 17-35f2.8 and a 35-70f.28 might also be a good line up but not too keen on using the 35-70f2.8 as a primary lense on a wedding.

I have considered my options and they are now down to 17-55 and 28-70

I know, I know FF is not here yet for Nikon but it is a possibility that in 2-3 years it would be ? who knows ?

I've used a 17-35 and a 17-55 but not a 28-70 - If any members that live in the Hills District would be kind enough to give me a demo, it would be very much appreciated - though i might have to just go to the local camera store that have them on stock - most wont even mount it on a camera to try... So members kind enough, please PM me =)

The 12-24m, 28-70 option gives me good coverage for the range i mostly shoot, but will I miss 2.8 when shooting with the 12-24 especially shooting natural light inside churches - the 28 just doesnt seem wide enough ???? anything past 400ISO on the D200 starts to get noise.
I'm inclined to go 28-70 which would give me 12-24, 28-70, 80-200 range but I just dont want to be in a situation that I've clipped of the 12-24 and using the 28-70, 80-200 and cannot shoot the group as its too wide..????

Your comments and thoughts would be greatly appreciated, especially those that shoot weddings and events.

Thanks.

unfortunately i cannot offer any advice as to the choice between the two lenses,

but after reading through your post, it seems that the 17-55 is the lens you want, with the only issue being DX and future usability.

one point to take into account is that when (not if) Nikon makes a FF body, it would be most likely that there is some form of a crop mode (not unlike the 2X crop on the D2X) that allows use of DX lenses at a 1.5X crop (albeit with some loss in MP).

i know this is speculation, but it would be unlikely that nikon would alienate DX users when they could easily put in such a feature.

if your primary concern is future usability (rather than resale value), i probably wouldnt be too concerned about the difference between DX and FF lenses.

however if your concern is usability on film bodies, then DX lenses are generally out of the question.

just some food for thought.

If your preference is for faster than f4 (re 12-24), and you want something wider than the 28-70, you could consider the latter lens in conjunction with the 20 2.8. I find it a great lens, awesome value, wide enough without distorting too much.

Not sure about relative pricing, but there are other wide primes @ 2.8 that you could consider: 14, 16 & 18, all non-DX.

I haven't used the 12-24 nor the 17-55 (I have the 17-35 and love it).

If you're going to shoot weddings seriously and you believe the 17-55 is the lens for you, then buy it. Forget about FF/DX debate and think about what would be the best for your photography NOW.

Resale on the 17-55 would be good and the use you will get out of it will far outway the loss in $ after resale when u finally do go FF.

I was in the same position and went the 17-55 and 70-200 with a few primes here and there. No regrets at all so far and when Nikon finally do release this D3, then I will sell the 17-55 and buy a 28-70 and lose a couple hundred bucks.

Absolutely magic candids can be had @ 150-200mm focal length when the bride is totally unaware you're even taking pics of them. You can't exclude these opportunities as a wedding photographer as the close crop, head shots is where the emotion is really captured.

Reschsmooth wrote:Not sure about relative pricing, but there are other wide primes @ 2.8 that you could consider: 14, 16 & 18, all non-DX.

).

the 14mm is very expensive, its a exotic piece of glass. about the same price as a 17-35, 17-55 or 28-70.

the 16mm is well priced though. do not know about 18mm.

Excellent points guys... I like the use of primes, and do use my 50mm f1.4 quite often but for my style of shooting, i like to comforts of a slight zoom...

FF wasnt a primary concern, but it was definetely one of them. But at the same time, i dont think I will be upgrading the D200 for at least anoter 3-5 years ???

I dont think I plan to shoot film anytime soon. I used to shoot with a F90 with my 35-70 and that was brilliant, but now love the use of digital technology preview =)

I do agree that some candid shots taken at 150mm up where the subject is unaware works brilliantly... Its def got more emotions..

Now I think I'm more inclined to got the 17-55 .....
I'll still go and try out a 28-70 prior.. JUst want to make sure I've explored the options enough to make a sound decision.

Thanks.

I've bee running around with a D2 + 28-70 + SB800 all nights for events and social photos.

The verdicts, IMHO:

Pros:
- Extremely sharp, all way from f2.8
- Wonderful colour rendition and bokeh
- Flexible f2.8 option
- 70mm is just right for portraits of individual or very small groups of 2-3 people
- "Looks PRO" -- that's what I get from everyone seeing that setup at first go

Cons:
- Too big, takes up space in your bag
- Attracts unwanted attention when you're out
- Too heavy, sore arms after the day
- 28mm is not wide enough anymore at tight spaces or you want some funky angles
- 28mm is not enough to do big group shots at tight spaces


On wedding days, I take the 10-20 and this 28-70 with me and it can be on the whole day while the 10-20 get exchanged with something like a 85/1.4 or 70-200...

Just my 2cents~~

blackD200 wrote:What its for ?
Mainly events and portraits. 90% of those events are weddings...


...but the lense in an investment and i would plan to use these lenses for 10-15 years....

the 28-70 is king for portrait, but is not very wide.

if you want 10 years, I'd say forget the DX.

relook at the 17-35, I know lots of the guru's in here that shoot people every day sing its praises, and I'd rather capture wide and crop, than miss the set (and you get your close ups with the 80-200).

I would go with the 28 - 70.

I have both the lenses that you are looking at and if I am going to a wedding or People type shot events I like that fact that you can be Less in your subjects face with the 28-70.

The quality of the images from that lens is second to none.

Since I have had it, it has not come off my camera that is going on 3 months....

the 28-70 range on a dx sensor is such a boring traditional focal range

i used this lens for press work for about a year and i hated it, being too tight and impractical, not to mention the cost, i struggled to get a full length shot at 28mm on the red carpet or social situation
the only good thing about it is that it looks real sexy and mean if your into that then cool but its an impractical lens even the minimum focus distance isn't that good compared to the 17-35

the 17-35 can be used for future full frame bodies, if you think you need the 70mm range just take a few steps closer to your subject

am not realy too keen on looking pro or looks.
Though when I'm using the D200 without the MB and a 50mm prime, people sometimes mentioned that they expected my gear to be a lot bigger ? maybe image is a good marketing tool too ? you look pro - you must be a pro...

17-55 with its lens hood is a chucky beast too... bigger then the 18-70 anyways....

Wendel makes a very good point regarding struggling to get full length shots at 28mm... most wedding are quite tight and at times low light..
hence I may miss the f2.8 when using the f4 12-24 for wide shots.

without any experience with the 28-70 I really cant make a 100% decision -- luckily a forum member has been kind enough to give me a demo of his 28-70 later on the week... =) thanks mate.... will test the lense and finally put this decision to bed, and be done with it.

Thanks again for the feedback fellows...... keep em coming - they're all very good points and some I havent really thought about...

go the 17-35! From the images I've seen from it, the quality is head and shoulders above the 17-55 DX.

Thanks to Ray - i got to play with a 28-70 last night. ITs a brilliant lense and is much bigger than i expected - no wonder its called the beast.
a little bigger than a 17-55 but its a monster compared to the 18-70...

With the use of 2 digital bodies, I'm still torn between the following line up..
Line up 1:
Primary : 12-24f4 & 28-702.8 ----> switch lenses 80-200f2.8, 50f1.4

Line up 2:
Primary : 17-55f2.8 & 80-200f2.8 ----> switch lense 12-24f4, 50f1.4

I think either line up would work for me ????
I might just toss a coin. and be done with it.... =)

Thanks again guys for all the feedback -
I've read through many GOOGLE search results in the past week or so and In the end i think there is a big camp that are happy with the 17-55mm and an equally big camp happy with the 28-70mm

I think either line up I still have coverage from 12mm-->200mm.
Thanks again guys..

No longer a dilema.

After going through most of my images for weddings and events - and the actual ones that do make it to the albums, most of my shots on the 18-70 kit lense are on the 30mm up and a lot of 70mm looking for more zoom...
when I shot wide it was at 18mm and mostly flash and group shots... very seldomly 22mm to 24mm shots...

hence the descision was made
28-70 it was...

so the primary kit will be 12-24 and 28-70. BTW Got the lense today too and its huge. I cant beleive how massive this thing is in comparison to the 18-70... With the hood on -- it even looks chunckier than the 80-200..

no wonder its called the "BEAST"

Its not as tight as i thought - I can still get a full body portrait oriented shot 3-4 meters away from the subject... not bad.....

woooohooo

Extremely happy with it so far..

Congrats mate, enjoy your new glass, can't wait to see some photos.