17-55 2.8 vs 28-70 2.8

[MattyO]

Hey all,

Im lookin at a new lens soon as i am travelling in the near future. I was pretty much set on the 17-55 as the one i had previously used has given me excellent results and was a good quality build.

But someone told me that the 28-70 was a much better performer. I have the 70-200 so i think i am much more likely to miss the wide angle performance rather than going long, as i can just crop or chuck on the 70-200.

There is one thing that bothers me tho, there is a lot of talk about nikon going full frame... i myself really don't have a lot of use for it, but will be looking (alot) further down the line at probably teh d3 range when it comes out, and i don't want to be stuck with a lens that wont be suited for it.

I am a little unsure at the moment as to what is the best direction i should head, and if i make a mistake its not really going to be a cheap one.

Ideally, id just go 17-35 + 28-70 but the 17-55 seems to fit nicely in that range.

Regards
Matty

[PiroStitch]

you could also have a look at the sigma 10-22 f4 and the tokina 28-70 f2.8 for probably the same price as the nikon 28-70.

As for the Nikon FF issue, if they do release it - do you need it and would you get it immediately? Personally I see it as a non issue right now. Understandably you want to buy something that will last you in the future but FF IMHO shouldn't be a factor to stop you

[petermmc]

Travelling invariably lends itself to wide shots so I would go for the 17-55. By the time Nikon releases a version of the full frame for us plebs, even digital photography may be a thing of the past. The 17-55 is a good size the 28-70 is seriously big and chunky.

Regs

[methd]

+1 to the 17-55...

that'll be my main lens when i travel.

[MattyO]

Is there anything that sets these lens's apart optically?

But i see myself mostly as a sports shooter, i have no need for full frame.
What i am more worried about is nikon making the 1.5x crop size redundant.

[PiroStitch]

something else to consider is the sigma 18-50 f2.8.

I used that pretty much through out my trip to Japan and Vanuatu and loved it.

[Alpha_7]

Is there anything that sets these lens's apart optically?

But i see myself mostly as a sports shooter, i have no need for full frame.
What i am more worried about is nikon making the 1.5x crop size redundant.

There are plenty of DX lens on the market and in camera bags world wide, Nikon would have to be truely stupid to do away with the format completely...

[MattyO]

yes i was hoping that was the case, but im sure such decisions have been made before.

[Reschsmooth]

I would fall into the camp of 17-35mm - it is a seriously fantastic lens. I have the 17-35 and 80-200 combo (granted I have the 50 1.8 but rarely use it), and have only once regretted not having something in the middle, and that was at Fox Glacier (NZ) which was 359 days ago!

I didn't go for that lens because of its full-frame capability, but it would help if a DFF ever came out (and it works great on the f90x - 17mm is very wide!)

P

[Reschsmooth]

...Nikon would have to be truely stupid...

I think there are a few on this site who may just think they are!

P

[wendellt]

the 28-70 is one of nikons quality lenses

but after using mine for 2 years i think it's impractical for the cost 28mm with 1.5 crop factor definately not wide

17-55 or the 17-35 heaps more practical in lots of situations

[Alpha_7]

...Nikon would have to be truely stupid...

I think there are a few on this site who may just think they are!

P

True, but that is mainly because they haven't released a FF camera, and they have FF lenses they want to use.

I can't see Nikon moving completely to FF, and abandoning the DX lens and smaller sensor.. but even if they do..

Nikon could release a FF camera but with a DX crop mode, use all your DX lens but at a slightly reduced resolution.. ?? This would make sense to me, if Nikon do eventually go FF, which I don't think is necessarily their plan.

[losfp]

Unless you're going to be doing a lot of people photography, I wouldn't bother with the 28-70.

I have the 28-75 (Tamron), and I love it... however, I will not be bringing it with us on our 4-week trip to Alaska in July (hooray! Only 3 months to go!!). IMO it is a fantastic party lens because it will do everything from group shots to tight portraits... but 28mm on a crop body just isn't wide enough for travel (at least not the way I shoot - I know stubbsy thinks differently).

I brought it along for the Harbour walk last weekend, but quickly swapped it out for something else because either I wanted wider or longer. I'll be taking the Tokina 12-24 and Nikkor 70-200 away with me.

So really IMO your choice is between the 12-24, 17-35 and 17-55.

[Killakoala]

Alternatively, a 12-24 and a 50 F1.4 to fill the gap.

That way you get a fast prime and plenty of wide angle to explore the boundaries with.

[Oz_Beachside]

glass, glass, beautiful glass. Lots of choices there.

The 17-55 + 70-200 I think would be wonderful, and would keep the bag light.

I wanted the 28-70 for people, so I went with 12-24 + 28-70 + 70-200.

The 17-55 would be great. and who knows... it might make its way from HK to Melbourne someday...

[MattyO]

in what way is 28-70 better for people?

from what i can gather, in the range of 28-55 on a dx sized sensor... there isn't anything that could distinguish these lens's optically?

[Oz_Beachside]

in what way is 28-70 better for people?

from what i can gather, in the range of 28-55 on a dx sized sensor... there isn't anything that could distinguish these lens's optically?

In the way that the 17-55 stops at 55mm.

For me, I like the compression I get over 50mm. This is quite widely preferred, to use longer than standard focal length, for more flattering portraiture.

If the focal length was not an issue, second on the list would be distance to subject. For a headshot, at 55mm, I'd need to get uncomfortably close, so I like the 70mm. (not as much as the lovely 85mm but thats another story).

My personal conclusion, was a matter of priorities. If I wanted general, I would have the 17-55, for portraiture, I went the 28-70.

[MattyO]

But since i have the 70-200, which would probably be great for portrature as well, this shouldn't really be a problem?

[Oz_Beachside]

But since i have the 70-200, which would probably be great for portrature as well, this shouldn't really be a problem?

personally, with the 70-200, there are no problems I love it.

my preference, was to enjoy the range 50-70. The 17-55 + 70-200 combo misses this range.

its a matter of priorities/preferences. Both are no doubt great.

I will add, that with the 28-70 + 70-200 I miss out on the wide angle range. So, if you want two bodies, with two lenses (say for a shoot of some kind) and you wanted wide through to 200mm, I'd go the 17-55 + 70-200.

or line up 3 lenses, 12-24 + 28-70 + 70-200.

[stubbsy]

Matty

I have both the 28-70 f/2.8 and the 70-200 VR. I also have the nikkor 12-24. I recently spent 3 weeks in New Zealand and took along all three of these lenses (plus the 10.5 fisheye ) My most used lens BY FAR was the 28-70 and I didn't take a lot of people shots with it as any cursory glance at my pics would show. Of the 6,633 shots I took there I'd say something like 75% were with the 28-70. The biggest problem for me wasn't at the 28 end it was at the 70 end. Sometimes I'd have liked a little more zoom and that's when I used the 70-200. Least used was the 12-24. Of course YMMV

[MattyO]

that would be good if money grew on trees.... but im also looking towards the long end of my setup, either 300mm 2.8 or 200-400 as those are the type of focal lengths i would probably shoot most at.

i think the 17-55 should be a good comprimise. It offers the quality, over a decent usable range.

[joey]

Definitely the one which is not DX. if you want to use the lens with film camera or on a FF which might be released at the end of this year or in 3 years times from now.

Consider this setup: 17-35mm 50mm f/1.8, 70-200mm
Alternatively, you may pick the 20-35mm f/2.8 lovely lens. In exc+ it will cost around $600US. That's how well quality Nikkors hold market value.

[Yi-P]

I may have to hijack this thread, as I was about to start the exact same discussion today, but didn't have internet access during daytime... Now that I read this post, I think I just post my question here. (I'll remove this if it does not fit)

Same situation about getting the 17-55 or 28-70. Tho my purpose for this lens is people shot at available light with minimal flash use. Mostly events and weddings, then other time as leisure shooting. So my main concern will be distortion on the wide end and ability to fit large groups. I will put the bokeh in as one of the factors (with lower priority).

I'm leaning towards the 28-70 right now, but still cannot really tell if I will miss the wider end zoom at 17mm, or the 70mm telephoto... Been using the 18-70 for years and really love the focal length on this lens, tho why there is no such f/2.8 zoom at this range. I guess I have to sacrifice one end.

I do have a 10-20 on my ultra wide side, though I seldom not to shoot portraits with it, unless just for fun...
Damn, these decisions are always hard!!

[tasadam]

Grow$ on tree$ indeed...
I figure from what I have read, that for people shots, the 28-70 is a better option, for landscape etc the 17-55.

We already have the 12-24 Nikon, and I can't decide on 17-35 or 17-55dx. Never going to go back to film and not worried about FF.

The biggest deciding factor for me against the 28-70 is its weight, we do a lot of bushwalking. In every other regard it would be a lovely lens and as we have the 12-24 (and the 50 f1.4), would complement our glass collection nicely.

But we have two bodies and sometimes both want the 12-24 so if I had one of the 17-X5 lenses that would make me a happy lad. As I say, need to do more reading about the 17-35 vs 17-55 and get some dosh together first, so no hurry.

I remember reading that no lens shoots into the sun as well as the 17-35, which is a big thing for me, but the extra versatility of the 17-55 is attractive. So unless I can find a real reason to favour the 17-35 I will probably go the 17-55.

That's where I'm at (and why). I hope my comments and a brief view on my situation are found useful in your decision making.

[MattyO]

i think what it may come down too, and what it is coming down to for me...

is that its sharp enough to be able to crop 55mm to a 70mm image, where as you cannot crop to a wider shot, if that makes sense...

[Yi-P]

i think what it may come down too, and what it is coming down to for me...

is that its sharp enough to be able to crop 55mm to a 70mm image, where as you cannot crop to a wider shot, if that makes sense...

I dont have the actual megapixels like the D200 to crop that much. I prefer the actual 70mm than a cropped 70mm from 55mm... not sure if you get what I mean.

[MattyO]

yer, i think i know what you mean.

70mm at 2.8 has a different depth of field compared to 55mm at 2.8 cropped to 70mm. Its only a 1.27 crop factor tho.... which i can get if i REALLY wanted too by using hte 70-200. But its all a comprimise instead of spending $3200+ on 17-35 + 28-70

[Oz_Beachside]

I'm sure th eanswer is somewhere, but I doubt the crop factor actually makes 50mm into 75mm, I think it would just simply be like croping a 35mm negative. You are simply croping, not actually changing the perspective of the image, so I doubt it is right to say that a 35mm focal length, on a DX body, looks the same as a cropped 50mm on a film body.

[fishafotos]

Matt,

I have an identical dilemma and I have come to the same conclusion as you. 17-55, purley because it is worse when you can't fit everything in than when you can't get quite close enough. Cropping can fix it to an extent whereas if you cant fit it in, there is bugger all you can do.