Nikkor 17-55 f2.8 or 24-70 f.28?

[cawdor]

Hi everyone, this forum loads a lot faster now, good improvement
Anyways, I want to replace my old Sigma 18-50 with something snazzy and I have my eyes on the abovementioned lenses. I have heard good and bad things about both and can't really make up my mind.

Primarily I shoot with my 70-200 2.8 and use the 18-50 for things like group shots, indoor shots etc where I need the wider angle. Is there much difference between 17 to 24? I'm thinking if I am indoors, I can't really take a step back if I am limited by the wall, whereas I can always take a step forward. This is the only reason I am slightly leaning towards the 17-55.

I would love to hear from people who have either or both of these lenses.

[gstark]

24-70 f/.28? Man, that must be a huge lens!

In all seriousness, I would be getting the 24-70, mainly because it's designed to work hand-hand with the 70-200.

While I take your point about the extra coverage that the 17 will provide, there will be times when 17 is also not wide enough, and then you also have the issues of the uncovered range between 55 and 70, and edge distortion that the 17 will be imparting upon your images. To my mind, that distortion would offset any advantage that the 17 might offer.

When I was shooting weddings, the widest lens I would use would be 35, on a film body, which is the equivalent of 24 on a DX, given the crop factor. While I had a 24 in my bag, I cannot recall ever using it in a social situation like that.

[biggerry]

In all seriousness, I would be getting the 24-70,

yep, I have the 17-55 and have used the 24-70, the 17-55 is really a wide angle option for the DX system and is more suited to photojournalism and landscape. If space is tight then yes it is an option however 24mm is still pretty wide, I reckon if you got the 24-70 you would probably find you would get quite an amount of use at the longer end of teh ie 50-70, this is a nice range on this lens with sweet bokeh and unparalleled sharpness.

I have heard good and bad things about both

I would be keen to hear the bad things about either of these lens

Is there much difference between 17 to 24?

about 7mm depends on whether you cutting Aunt Martha out of the group shot! I would have a look at some of your previous shots on the 18-50 and see what percentage of shots were indeed at the wide angle end.

at the end of teh day I reckon no one would be disappointed with either of these lens, however choosing the right one for your ops is the key - obviously other factors like future migration to FF is also going to be a factor too!

[surenj]

cawdor wrote:I have heard good and bad things about both
I would be keen to hear the bad things about either of these lens

So would I. apart from cost of course.

[radar]

Seeing in your signature that you have the very good Tokina 12-24, I would have thought that getting the 24-70 was the next logical progression.

For those times that you do need very wide, you have that 12-24 to help you out. So forget the 17-55 and get the 24-70, will also serve you very well if you eventually get a FF camera.

cheers,

André

[barry]

I have used both lenses and both are very good.

For a DX body I would go for the 17-55 however on a FF body I would go for the 24-70.

I use the 24-70 on my FF body as the standard walk around lense.

I would be getting the 24-70, mainly because it's designed to work hand-hand with the 70-200

[cawdor]

Thanks for the replies so far. Over the past few months I read a lot about these two lenses, so I don't remember exactly where a particular point was mentioned. The negatives for the 24-70 were:

- expensive
- heavy
- some field curvature at 24mm

For the 17-55

- expensive
- distortion on the 17 and 55 ends

Price and weight are not big issues for me, I use the 70-200 and am used to a heavy lens. I am mostly doing outdoor action shots so I don't see myself going full frame any time soon due to loss of reach and I cannot justify spending $8k to go to 400 f2.8
Now if Nikon would bring out a 70-300 f2.8 - that would be a different story and may make me go full frame if the price is reasonable.

[aim54x]

Well I own the Nikkor 24-70 and the Tamron 17-50 (pretty close in terms of focal range to the 17-55). I actually found that for events the 24-70's extra reach was very nice, hence the purchase, however I use the 17-50 a lot more still due to the extra width and smaller size and weight.

[surenj]

Now if Nikon would bring out a 70-300 f2.8 - that would be a different story and may make me go full frame if the price is reasonable.

You will also need a pick up truck to carry this lens. and a spare $20000.

[petermmc]

Hi

I had the 17-55. Great lens and as sharp as you'll ever want a lens of this range. Thinking about going FX one day I was in a Camera shop in Hobart and started playing with the 24-70. The lens sold itself to me. Got a good trade in and did the deed. I do miss the wide part but the 24-70 is a bit better built IMHO and is so smooth to use whereas the 17-55 seemed to be working hard sometimes to zoom as its zoom ring is quite small. I filled the gap with the 14-24 and I have never looked back.

The 24-70 is just a superb piece of kit. It is narrower than the 17-55 and slighly longer. People talk about 'POP' in photos.This is the lens that POPS. I have used it at a whole range of graduations and dinners where groups of up to 10-12 were popping in front of me for a shot and it did them all admirably even though I still have a d200.

Reasons to buy the 24-70
1. Better built
2. Smooth as you can imagine
3. Sharp as a tack
4. Nano coating
5. Integrates with your 70-200 seemlessly in regard to focal length
6. Great prices at the moment - check out DD Photographics
7. Gives you a longer term excuse to buy the 14-24 or the 16-35
8. Comes with a nice case
9. Is a newer design
10. Because someone you have never met says it is a great idea

Reasons to buy the 17-55
1. You didn't listen to the above
2. You like wider than longer
3. It is cheaper in some places
4. Sharp as a tack
5. Will fit better into a shorter camera case
6. You have never read Dpreview
7. Your neighbour is about to sell you one really cheap

You can't ignore the numbers above which are based on empirical evidence using a sample of one 10/10 for the 24-70 and 7/10 for the 17-55. Oh...I must go and use my 14-24 which I only got because I traded my 17-55 for a 24-70.

Regards

Peter Mc

[cawdor]

Well it certainly sounds like the 24-70 is the way to go, and my neighbour doesn't have a 17-55 for sale
Once again I do appreciate the input from everyone, I am comfortable ordering from DD Photographics, ordered heaps of gear from them before. Is there any store in OZ that has it considerably cheaper than $2093 delivered?

[Geoff M]

Cameras Direct have it for $2065 but this does not include delivery.
https://www.camerasdirect.com.au/index. ... stock.html