17-55 2.8 vs 24-70 2.8

I actually (like in the past hour) went through that very decision. I picked up an almost brand-new 17-55 2.8 for my D90 for $900 (through Craigslist). I've only shot about 10 shots with it so far but I'm really happy with the decision. I may someday move to FX but for the time being it'll cover the similar range to the 24-70 due to the crop factor and it was about 1k less in price. Plus, I should be able to recover most of the investment should I ever want to sell it.

Good luck with your decision, I feel your pain!

 

try to set any of your zooms to 24mm , see if its wide enough for you  

 

The 17-55 is a perfect match for the D300.

With that said, the 24-70 is a perfect match for the D700 (or D3).

I enjoyed the 17-55 with my D80/D300. Once I converted to full frame, I sold the 17-55 and purchased the 24-70.

If I was still shooting DX, I would have never sold the 17-55. It's an awesome lens!

Glenn

 

How do you find the range of the 18-55 you currently own for the type of photography you do? Just right? Too short?

Just right = 17-55
Too short = 24-70

 

Buy a 17-55 used and when you switch to FX you'll be able to sell it for the same price you got it for and will have half of your 24-70 paid for.

28-70 on DX just isn't wide enough for me.

24-70 I think I'd actually like a lot on DX or FX, but it's 50% more than the 17-55 is.

Don't think there's any huge difference in sharpness between the two lenses.

 

I'm glad you put this post up OP. I hadn't thought that Nikon might introduce a replacement for the 24-70 by the time I will be ready to move to FX (which will, most likely, be in > 2 years). Another reason why I'm glad I picked up the 17-55 today! I feel fairly confident that for $900 I won't lose too much when I go to sell the lens. For now it will be well used on my D90.

Thanks everyone!

 

Hi Jay,
I had the 17-55 when using a dx camera. But I sold it for a 24-70, which I used for a short time on a D300 before I switched to a D700. In my eyes, the 24-70 is a bit sharper than the 17-55, but that may also be a matter of sample variation. Just try out which focal length is best for you (will the 24-70 provide enough wide angle on a dx camera?). If you don`t intend to switch to fx in the near future, nothing speaks against a 17-55. But be aware of second hand lenses of the 17-55, because with this lens there is sample variation. So better buy it from a shop where you can give it back if you are not satisfied. I hope I could help a bit.

 

24 is too narrow for dx but perfect for fx
get the 17-55

 

Randy, I think you mean "too narrow" right? ;P

Anyhow, it's a very personal choice because it really boils down to whether 24mm if wide enough on DX. For me, it isn't, and even though I have access to wider lenses, it is still a bit of a hassle to change lenses frequently, especially when it is very humid outdoors or raining. It's just a shame the 17-55 doesn't have the same stunning performance of the 24-70. It would be nice for Nikon to refresh the 17-55 with the latest coatings and improve flare/ghosting resistance.

 

fixed...thx