so i just spent an arm and leg

Joined
Jul 29, 2005
Messages
9,532
Location
Pittsburgh, Pa.
Joined
Jul 8, 2007
Messages
1,293
Location
East Tennessee USA
i'm just curious if you have tried the 17-55. i have never understood why people with crop cameras choose a full frame lens over the 17-55 which gives you wide angle.

half the price and more useful
 
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
41,215
Joined
Jan 4, 2008
Messages
3,400
Location
New York City
i'm just curious if you have tried the 17-55. i have never understood why people with crop cameras choose a full frame lens over the 17-55 which gives you wide angle.

half the price and more useful
Again, I don't understand this argument. Just because the lens projects an image circle that covers a full 35mm film plane does not detract from it's ability to create images on a DX body. And as far as the "half the price" comment goes, here are today's B&H prices for each lens:

17-55: $1,384.95
24-70: $1,729.95

That's a difference of $384. Cheaper, but far from "half the price."

When I was shooting with a DX body, my main mid-range lens became a 28-105. If I needed anything wider, I switched to my 10-20.

It also depends on what its intended use will be. I like my 28-70 much better on my D40x than on my D700. I find the field of view on the cropped body much more useful for portraits, and the bulk of the lens is off set well by the small body.

Just because a lens can be used on FX, doesn't discount it for use on DX.
 
Joined
Jan 11, 2010
Messages
411
Location
ogden ut
i'm just curious if you have tried the 17-55. i have never understood why people with crop cameras choose a full frame lens over the 17-55 which gives you wide angle.

half the price and more useful
cause im playing the waiting game for the new d700 replacement so i am going fx. figured i could enjoy the lens on my d5000 till the camera comes out. might be this year might be in 2 years who knows. but in the mean time ill enjoy the lens.
 
Joined
Jul 8, 2007
Messages
1,293
Location
East Tennessee USA
Again, I don't understand this argument. Just because the lens projects an image circle that covers a full 35mm film plane does not detract from it's ability to create images on a DX body. And as far as the "half the price" comment goes, here are today's B&H prices for each lens:

17-55: $1,384.95
24-70: $1,729.95

That's a difference of $384. Cheaper, but far from "half the price."

When I was shooting with a DX body, my main mid-range lens became a 28-105. If I needed anything wider, I switched to my 10-20.

It also depends on what its intended use will be. I like my 28-70 much better on my D40x than on my D700. I find the field of view on the cropped body much more useful for portraits, and the bulk of the lens is off set well by the small body.

Just because a lens can be used on FX, doesn't discount it for use on DX.
read the title of the thread. the 17-55 goes for about $850 (half the price). the 17-55 blows the 28-70mm away for DX. the 24-70 is a little better but the range is not practical. why spend an arm and a leg when you could buy the 17-55 and a fast prime > 50mm sigma or 85mm 1.4? or just buy the 17-55 and keep the leg.
 
Joined
Jan 4, 2008
Messages
3,400
Location
New York City
read the title of the thread. the 17-55 goes for about $850 (half the price).
Ahh . . . But now you're comparing new vs. used prices. That's a very different animal. Your solution works well for you. Not everybody is going to share your opinion. You can cling to it, but not everyone's gonna share it is all I'm saying.

And the title of the thread has nothing to do with any of my comments.
 
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
2,303
Location
Cambria, CA
I've used FX fast glass lenses (both Nikon and Sigma) on DX bodies and never had a problem. It's a non-issue. Ignore the unfounded negativity and enjoy the lens.
 
Joined
Dec 4, 2006
Messages
10,266
Location
Texas!
i'm just curious if you have tried the 17-55. i have never understood why people with crop cameras choose a full frame lens over the 17-55 which gives you wide angle.

half the price and more useful
Keith...not sure what you're shooting with this lens...but just remember it's not a good portrait lens. Quite frankly I shoot almost all my stuff with 70-200 lens. But I do love my 24-70 just as much. The only reason I would buy a 17-55 is if I were going to Colorado to shoot landscapes. JMHO FWIW.
 
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