17-55mm or 28-70mm?

[joolz]

I am considering the purchase of a mid/short tele range lens, either the 17-55mm or the 28-70mm lens.
It's main purpose will be as a wedding photography lens.
My other lenses are a 24mm 2.8, 85mm 1.8, kit lens and 80-200.

I am in a dilemma as to which I should buy, though I could probably make either one work.
I'm not terribly worried about the image qualities from either - I'm sure they are both pretty much top notch. It's more of an issue of focal lengths.
I've listed some of my thoughts on each lens:

17-55mm
At Birddog's prices, there is a slight advantage to the 17-55 ~$300 cheaper.
True wide angle (~25mm) and reasonable short tele (~80mm)
Doing weddings (esp. asian tea ceremonies in small living rooms and 30 people crammed around it), I am loath to switch lenses whilst in the thick of the action and don't have the option of stepping back through the wall (or through Aunty Mabel ).
With the 17-55 I can step forward (usually) or crop later, but my only concern with that is wide angle perspective for portraiture.

28-70mm
Can use on my backup f90x film body
I tend to crop quite tightly for face/shoulders & find when using the 18-70 that I abut the long end more often.
Doesn't overlap 18-70 or 24mm lenses, which I can still use to shoot wide (though would have to change lenses).

I guess my long term plan would be to get a second body ( D100 replacement) and have the 70-200 on one of them.
There might be a role for a 12-24 to get the truly wide shots, but still, that would necessitate a lens change, and I suspect I would not use it terribly much.

At the moment, I am leaning towards, the 28-70, but I am just concerned that it will necessitate another lens for the wide end, which means switching until I have another body.

Any thoughts on the matter would be greatly appreciated, especially from those who own either/both of these lenses.

Joolz

[birddog114]

I vote for the 28-70/f2.8, the 17-55mm is not my favorite though I have the 17-35, I shoot most on my 17-35 + 28-70 as my combo kit.
My combo kit can play in both formats, and who know, perhaps the full frame format will be somewhere in the horizon.
The 17-35 can do very close focus than the 17-55, I ditched the 17-55 in my inventory cos I didn't see any advantages once I have the above combo kit.
Apart from those I used the 12-24 at some other as group photos, or in a small room

[gstark]

Joolz,

I'm going to (respectfully) suggest you're on the wrong track.

I'd be looking at something like a 35mm prime, and use the kit lens on the D70, and the 35 prime on your film body. Maybe a 50 prime as well ...

You're simply not going to gain anything with either of those lenses on the D70; the extra 1mm simply isn't worth worrying about in this context, and the kit lens, for the purposes of wedding photography and within the context of a D70 body is more than adequate.

Given your current crop of other lenses (and noting that they will fit your film body) I'd be using a 35 and 85 mostly on the second body, and perhaps very occassionally switching to the 80-200.

[JordanP]

the kit lens, for the purposes of wedding photography and within the context of a D70 body is more than adequate.

Gary,

I am going to (respectfully) disagree. I don't think you can call the kit adequate for wedding work when you look at the quality that can be obtained wide open in natural light indoors with the 17-55. This is not to run down the excellence of the kit lens - particularly it value for money. But it depends on what quality of work you are wanting to send out as a wedding photographer. I have sold my kit as I never use it any more, I'm always using the 17-55 because of the results I get with it.

Birddog raises good points regarding the other possible choices, and it is all worth considering. My choice to go with the 17-55 over the lenses birddog talks about is purely its range. I find it a very versitile lens that I use to shoot 80% of the wedding. I also use the 85mm 1.8 and the 70-200VR for the rest of the time.

Joolz - I would be looking at the trade offs between the 17-35 that birddog mentioned and the 17-55

I have done a brief review of the 17-55 lens here
http://www.d70users.com/viewtopic.php?t=2961&start=0
for a bit more info

[shutterbug]

Hi Joolz,

17-55mm is the way to go for wedding photography. The wide side is great. Yes you will not have the extra reach but you can always get another dslr with the 80-200mm or 85mm (light weight) attached.

[MHD]

I've played with "the big 3" at Birddogs...

17-35: initially I bagged this lens out, why would you want such a short zoom range when there are other lenses which much wider ranges... That was until I played with it... The benifit of this lens: Very close focusing! And combine that with a wide angle lens you get a GREAT lens for crowds and dynamic images

17-55: Awesome sharpness, fast focus, great wide angle coverage and lighter than the 28-70

28-70: Picking up this lens makes me go WOW... This is a LOT of lens, has that great metal finish that the 17-55 does not... this lens is HEAVY but wow wow wow, super quick, stupidly sharp (you will need to soften some portraits as it shows all blemishes, pimples and wrinkles)...
And a somewhat intimitating lens... the kind of lens people look at the camera and think "is this going to hurt"

My personal opinion: The difference in price is not enough between the 17-55 and 28-70... The extra money is well worth it for the 28-70, it is a true Pro lens in every aspect... A dream combo is the 17-35 + 28-70

When you get them let me know what times you leave your house unlocked

[gstark]

Craig,

the kit lens, for the purposes of wedding photography and within the context of a D70 body is more than adequate.

Gary,

I am going to (respectfully) disagree. I don't think you can call the kit adequate for wedding work when you look at the quality that can be obtained wide open in natural light indoors with the 17-55.

No, that's fine, but rather than look at this from the photographers' perspective, I'm choosing to look at this from the POV of the end customer, who, in the main, will not be buying images larger than 10 x 8.

I'm not denying for a moment the better quality images that the 17-55 is capable of, but IME weddings are largely bulk, low-end happy-snaps that will not be able to reap the benefit of better optics.

Certainly, for the more important shots, use a better quality lens, but if you're shooting groups, table shots, or candids, the kit lens is more than capable in terms of both doing the job, and producing images of acceptable quality for the great unwashed.

Sorry, I meant customers.

[yeocsa]

Another alternative is to use the money you are going to spend on the 17 - 55 to buy another D70s + 20mm f2.8. A second body serves as a backup and save you the trouble from swap lens. Heh heh... may be look more pro.

To me the ability to be closer (distance from the group of people) and using the lens corrected for this purpose is a major advantage particularly in confined space (indoor, for e.g.)

regards,

Arthur

[MHD]

Good point...

I would not want to shoot a wedding with one body...

I have this image of a bride storming towards you because your shutter jammed and no backup body!

[JordanP]

Craig,

the kit lens, for the purposes of wedding photography and within the context of a D70 body is more than adequate.

Gary,

I am going to (respectfully) disagree. I don't think you can call the kit adequate for wedding work when you look at the quality that can be obtained wide open in natural light indoors with the 17-55.

No, that's fine, but rather than look at this from the photographers' perspective, I'm choosing to look at this from the POV of the end customer, who, in the main, will not be buying images larger than 10 x 8.

I'm not denying for a moment the better quality images that the 17-55 is capable of, but IME weddings are largely bulk, low-end happy-snaps that will not be able to reap the benefit of better optics.

Certainly, for the more important shots, use a better quality lens, but if you're shooting groups, table shots, or candids, the kit lens is more than capable in terms of both doing the job, and producing images of acceptable quality for the great unwashed.

Sorry, I meant customers.

point taken. Pride in your own standard work can be quite different from the appreciation from the customer - on the majority. I would still tend to err in the direction of my standards - not the clients though.

Beyond your own pride there is alot to be gained by being able to use natural light becasue you can shoot at 2.8

Cheers,

[Deano]

Joolz,

Have you considered a non-Nikkor lens? I have the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 if you want to borrow it.

Gary?

Cheers
Dean

[birddog114]

The problems of 17-55Dx is: it can't be used on his F90 or perhaps the future of full frame DSLR.

The great combo is 17-35 + 28-70 and you'll ever dreaming of owning another set of lens. None can't beat! take my words.

A backup body is good considering by waiting until the third or fourth quarter of the 05 and you guys will be surprised or shock when comparing with the D70s, I'm telling you the truth and don't care if you guy put off buying the d70s from me as second body.

[JordanP]

The problems of 17-55Dx is: it can't be used on his F90 or perhaps the future of full frame DSLR.

The great combo is 17-35 + 28-70 and you'll ever dreaming of owning another set of lens. None can't beat! take my words.

A backup body is good considering by waiting until the third or fourth quarter of the 05 and you guys will be surprised or shock when comparing with the D70s, I'm telling you the truth and don't care if you guy put off buying the d70s from me as second body.

I agree totally. If you want the lens to be used on a film body there is no contest.

[MCWB]

Have you considered a non-Nikkor lens? I have the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 if you want to borrow it.

Semi-thread hijack: how do you find this lens Dean? I'm considering all the options mentioned in this thread, including the Sigmas. The general consensus from what I've read seems to be that the Sigma 24-60 f/2.8 is more useable wide open than the 24-70, where wide open is a last resort. The 18-50 f/2.8 seems to be in the same basket as the 24-70 as well, although Kerry has posted some excellent shots with it. Hmm, this lust never ends!

[gstark]

Joolz,

Have you considered a non-Nikkor lens? I have the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 if you want to borrow it.

Gary?

[gstark]

Craig,

point taken. Pride in your own standard work can be quite different from the appreciation from the customer - on the majority. I would still tend to err in the direction of my standards - not the clients though.

Beyond your own pride there is alot to be gained by being able to use natural light becasue you can shoot at 2.8

I view the extra available light capabilities as both a bonus and a potential problem, especially when shooting outdoors and you're wanting to use less, rather than more, light.

And while I don't disagree with you in principal, whilstever he's keeping the kit lens, I don't really see that he's going to gain a lot (at the end of the day) with either of the originally suggested lenses.

FWIW, I used to shoot weddings with a pair of bodies (Nikon or Canon) mounted in tandem and hooked up to my 60CT1. I would use a 35 on one body, and a 35-105 (or a 35-70, or the old 43-86 even) on the second.

Translating that back to our 1.5 crop factor, and for two digital bodies, I would see a 24 on one, and a 24-120 on the second. Apart from a medium format with something between a 75 - 105 (depending upon the body in use) and some reasonable flash artillery, there would be very little else I'd see as essential in my wedding kit.

[shutterbug]

Go for the Nikkors....tops when wide open, great for avaliable light images. My ideal combination would be 17-55f2.8, 70-200f2.8, 50f1.4

[birddog114]

Go for the Nikkors....tops when wide open, great for avaliable light images. My ideal combination would be 17-55f2.8, 70-200f2.8, 50f1.4

It's excellent if you don't have any F5/ F90 or any Nikon Film format camera to be used as a back-up body, if you want to use the 17-55Dx on the film camera, in case your D70 got the heart attack then your client will be more happy to receive your compensation cheque

[shutterbug]

very true.....

[joolz]

(Respectful ) thanks for everyone's input.
2 pages already
Lots of opinions on what seems to be a reasonably warmly debated topic.

Thanks for complicating my purchase decision further I hadn't thought of the 17-35mm, a 20mm or the Sigmas. Looks like I need to broaden my research. However, it probably still stands between the original two lenses.

I should clarify one point. The f90x is truly only a backup rather than 2nd body. Being able to use the lens on the other camera is an advantage, but the film body would be for emergencies only. My partner that I work in tandem with is my true backup (who unfortunately shoots with a C@non 20D, despite my attempts to make him see the (dark?) light). I would end up shooting a lot less, but more controlled shots with my primes or 80-200. I also have a 24-120mm(non VR) and a Metz 45-CL for that body. I don't like the 24-120 terribly much, a bit slow and not terribly sharp or contrasty, and I rarely use it despite it's wide range (my father's originally).
The full frame digital factor is something I have thought about, though I'm reasonably confident that DX will be here for quite a while, so it is only a minor point.

Gary, much as I love my primes, for this range and for my style of shooting, I find that I need something a bit more flexible than a 35mm. Having used my kit lens for a while, I find it's not up to par for the shots that I want in fast wedding situations. I tend to shoot wide open using natural indoor light with a bit of extra bounced flash. Although I'm loving my LSII at the moment, I still prefer natural light and the kit lens is just not fast enough for me to stop motion (either mine or subjects'). I use the kit lens stopped down & when there is reasonable amount of light (and preferrably of stationary subjects & tripod). For that purpose the kit lens is fantastic value for me. However, it may end up being sold down the track (esp if I buy the 17-55).

Birddog, JirdanP & MHD: The 17-35 would probably end up being a secondary lens for me, as I think it'd be a little too short for the majority of my style of shots. However, the close focusing is certainly something to consider for detail shots.
The extra weight of the 28-70 is a negative I hadn't considered.
Arthur, the 20mm and another body is probably a later option. But it would probably again be a secondary lens & I probably will wait for the newer bodies to be released.
Birddog, is there something you know that you aren't telling us re: new bodies

Hmmm, will have to put some more thought into it.
Thanks again everyone.

Joolz

[JordanP]

If it is definitely only between the two original lenses you posted and your probably using it to replace the kit lens, then I would go the 17-55 because of the wide end.

cheers,

[shutterbug]

yep, all the wedding photographers I know are using the 17-55mm. This lense will capture >80% of the images during a wedding. I use it with the 80-200mm and also my primes. I use my primes exclusively last year, but after using the 17-55mm, I have not turn back.

At the end of the day...both the nikkors will be great, it all depends on your style. The wide end of the 17-55mm is very useful. Do a search on vlphotography and have a look at my portfolio, most of the images are taken with the 17-55mm.

[birddog114]

Birddog, is there something you know that you aren't telling us re: new bodies

Come to the meet of AA, you will hear more of these new babies

[shutterbug]

new babies......I will be there

[birddog114]

new babies......I will be there

Want to know all then, have to attend two evenings: Part 1 & Part II

[shutterbug]

hmmm.....OK birddog....it better be good.

[Deano]

Semi-thread hijack: how do you find this lens Dean? I'm considering all the options mentioned in this thread, including the Sigmas. The general consensus from what I've read seems to be that the Sigma 24-60 f/2.8 is more useable wide open than the 24-70, where wide open is a last resort. The 18-50 f/2.8 seems to be in the same basket as the 24-70 as well, although Kerry has posted some excellent shots with it. Hmm, this lust never ends!

MCWB,
Seems that Joolz got his value from the thread so I reckon it's fair game now.

Frankly I haven't come to a conclussion on this lens - I'm not even sure I'm qualified to do so. I got the lens to take candids at a mates wedding. I used the SB800 for the first time in anger as well and a lot of my shots are soft. I suspect this has more to do with me not taking enough notice of shutter speed and suffering camera shake. I will need some more time with the lens (and flash) before I can really decide if it is a keeper.

Cheers
Dean

[gstark]

Dean,

I used the SB800 for the first time in anger as well and a lot of my shots are soft. I suspect this has more to do with me not taking enough notice of shutter speed and suffering camera shake. I will need some more time with the lens (and flash) before I can really decide if it is a keeper.

If you're shooting with the SB800 (or any flash, for that matter) camera shake should really not be an issue, unless you're really finely balancing your flash as fill to the available light.

But typically, your flash (its intensity) will be what's making your exposure, and probably at something like 1/20000 sec, with you selected shutter speed being little more than an opening of convenience to permit the flash to illuminate the subject while the shutter is fully open.

If you're seeing image softness, I'd suggest removal of the coke bottle from the front of the camera as the first port of call.

[joolz]

If you're seeing image softness, I'd suggest removal of the coke bottle from the front of the camera as the first port of call.

Or the wine bottle in front of your throat.

Alert, Alert. Hijackers aboard...
Question is, where are you taking this flight?
If it's to a preview to Nikon's latest offerings, I will gladly put some explosives in my shoes, pop on an eyepatch or pull out my stanley knife or whatever needs doing.

As for Sigma lenses, hmmm I haven't really had a play and even though they seem to be on the improve on the whole with QC and image:price, they are still an unknown quantity for me.
I will probably stick to Nikkors, but discuss away all the same.

[sirhc55]

Sigma - Nikon Hmmmm

There have been pics posted on this forum taken with Nikon, Sigma, Tamron and Tokina glass.

There have been pics taken with all types of glass that are great and conversely crap.

In the end it is knowing both your camera and the capabilities of the glass on the front of the camera that determines the quality - be it Nikon, Sigma, Tamron or Tokina.

Extracted from the Book of sirhc55, chapter 4, line 66

[joolz]

Just a quick update and thanks to everyone for their advice.
I eventually decided upon the 17-55mm and just received it today courtesy of our patron saint (well he does have wings).
Helluva nice piece of glass.
Had a quick play with it.
I've found that I can crop as close as I will probably need for most of my portrait work with the fantasticly short minimum focus distance. It's closer than I ever get with my 85.


It's also amazingly sharp wide open. Good Bokeh. Quality build.
Although it looks rather intimidating (especially with the hood on) think it'll work a treat at the next wedding shoot.
Thanks again everyone

Hmmm, now for the 70-200VR....  BTW I have a 18-70mm kit lens that I will probably sell if anyone is interested.

[Catcha]

wow that's very impressive lens

[fozzie]

joolz,

Congratulations on your new glass.

I am another owner of this lens and with it.

[birddog114]

joolz,
You'll be impressed with its performance and you have a good taste.
This lens will serve you well in both portrait and other purposes.
I'm sure you'll post more pics from this lens.