17-55 2.8 vs 24-70 2.8

Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
736
Location
San Jose, CA
Ohhhh man, I swear the more I hang out here the harder decisions seem to get. I was pretty much dead set on getting the 17-55 2.8 Nikkor for my D300 when it comes in (after a 50 1.8 to hold me over as a portrait lens) but now I'm debating on the 17-55 and the 24-70. While the 24-70 is more expensive, is it also sharper? The reason I've considered the 24-70 is, I may move on to FX in a few years (who knows, but it's nice to be prepared). I figured since I want the 11-16 2.8 anyways the loss of the 17-23 won't be such a big deal.

Either way, what do you think? What would you do in the same situation?
 
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Messages
407
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
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!
 
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
736
Location
San Jose, CA
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!
Thanks for the input Rob! Yeah, the 17-55 is considerably cheaper. I may as well go that route for now. It doesn't look like DX will get phased out any time soon
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
24,069
Location
Orland Park, Illinois
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
 

Thorsten

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
4,458
Location
San Jose, California
You ought to buy the lens that works best for you now. And then when you move to FX in a few years as you indicated, there may well be a Nikon 22-80/2.8 VR lens that you will want. I had both lenses at some point, and on DX the differences at the shared focal length were very small, but the difference between 17mm and 24mm is very significant.
 
Joined
Oct 2, 2008
Messages
1,081
Location
Northern Virginia
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
 
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
736
Location
San Jose, CA
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
Thanks for the advice Glenn

You ought to buy the lens that works best for you now. And then when you move to FX in a few years as you indicated, there may well be a Nikon 22-80/2.8 VR lens that you will want. I had both lenses at some point, and on DX the differences at the shared focal length were very small, but the difference between 17mm and 24mm is very significant.
Ah, another good point Tom. There may be a new lens by the time I move to FX.
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
6,530
Location
Rockville, MD
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.
 
Joined
Jun 13, 2009
Messages
407
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
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!
 
Joined
May 10, 2009
Messages
1,847
Location
Germany
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.
 
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
363
Location
Hong Kong & Edinburgh
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.
 
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
41,615
Location
CHARLOTTE
Real Name
Randy
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
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom