1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

whats the major difference in these two lenses?

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by yahtzee, May 31, 2005.

  1. Nikon 28-70 2.8 ED IF AF-S and the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED AF-S DX

    if im not mistaken the 17-55 gives me more on the lower end(wider) and the 28-70 gives me more zoom.....im selling my kit lens and replacing with something with some 70-200 2.8-like build and want to ensure im making the right decision....i do find myself never shooting at 17mm with my kit lens but more so toward the 70mm side...(yes, uncle frank, the day is coming very soon)
  2. They're both outstanding lenses, Yahtzee. The 17-55 is sharper wide open, while the 28-70 is reputed to be the faster focuser. In the final analysis, your choice should be made on focal length preference.

    Neither offer much zoom range. I'm biased towards the longer focal lengths, so I chose the 28-70, and have complemented it with a 20mm prime lens. My friend, Phil Youngblood, is biased towards the wider focal lengths, so he chose the 17-55 is is going to complement it with an 85mm prime lens.

    One thing to keep in mind is that both of these lenses are big and heavy. I wouldn't be too hasty about selling your kit lens until you've had a chance to work with your new pro glass. You may find you want a lightweight walk-around lens for casual outings, and the 18-70 fits that bill nicely.

    Hope all is well with your marriage :wink:.
  3. Yep, superb are both.
    I think if you ask me every day for three months I'd buy the 17-55 65% of days and the 28-70 45% of days. ( not bad math...10% of days I'd buy both! :wink: )
    Much like UF I've embellished my kit with an 85mm...just did it at the other end of things.
    If I had the 28-70 my great 12-24 wouldn't be so neglected.
    I do find that the 17-55 balances great in my hands and I love it as a "walk around lens" but I walk heavily with my 70-200 and SB800 and another lens du jour in my little soft nylon pelican over my shoulder.
  4. Nice bit of tactful equivocating, Vernon :D .

    I think people get too hung up on complete and continuous focal length coverage. There's nothing wrong with a gap here and there... we've got feet. It does make sense to have continuous coverage over the most used range, but that requires a photographer understand his preferences and tendencies.

    I'd be delighted to shoot with a 17-55, 85, 80-200 combo. I'm just a little more delighted with the 20, 28-70, 80-200 combo.

    But I'll probably end up with an 85/1.4 someday anyway... if Nancy doesn't find out :roll:.
  5. nfoto

    nfoto Guest

    My opinion is that the photographer really benefits from *not* having a continuous range of focal lengths. Then the proper lens to use becomes much more apparent. Too often I see photographers zoom through the entire range just to find out they really need something different, and then change to another lens.

    Really nice combinations are 24-28-35 on the wide side and 85-105 on the long isde. Any combination would do just fine. You could substitute a zoom for the wide angles because today's pro calibre zooms are virtually as good as and in some cases even better than the wide primes. So a 17-35/2.8 would go pretty well with a 85/1.4 or 105/2 (or any Micro-Nikkor). For the wide aficionado, a 12-24 combined with a 50/1.4 would be near perfect.
  6. The biggest and most important difference is the "DX" issue. DX lenses are designed for digital cameras and the smaller chips size vs. the 35mm film.
  7. Dragonfly is so right and it's amazing how many of use have moved so soundly to digital Nikon that we're already forgetting the DX/FF lens coverage area issue.
    I'm hoping that this doesn't come back to bite me. It may, and the bite may sting badly. One of these days I'll dust off my 35mm Nikon body and remember how the DX coverage is limited. The DX lenses work fine, I think, it the longer 2/3 of their range on FF 35 mm film. It's the wide end where the coverage it lacking. My 10.5mm actually covers the full 35mm frame but includes a view of the little built -on hoodoid(?) overhangs!
    The FF debate has been re-re-re-debated ad-nausium but likely isn't over yet.
  8. Chris101


    Feb 2, 2005
    Josh and Vernon,

    Doesn't the 12 MP DX sized imager answer that question? I do see Nikon supporting the 24X36 format as long as they support film cameras though. Nikon has NEVER orphaned it's users. But the dropout of Kodak's slr-n means there are no 24X36 F mount digital cameras new on the market. The cost of re-introducing this 20th century format is too much for Nikon to undertake - especially considering the wrath of the DX lens owners.

    This doesn't even address the concerns about corner performance on larger format digital cameras with lenses designed for film's wider acceptance angle.

    DX forever, man. Well, a decade or two anyway.
  9. MontyDog


    Jan 30, 2005
    #1064 - You have an error in your SQL syntax;
  10. Chris, I am absolutely content that a 12+mp D2X as doing everything I need. The extra stop I might(perhaps maybe might) get from Canon at high ISO isn't of consequence for me and I suspect that the D4X and 1D Mark-V might have low noise ISO 6400...until then I'm happy as a mosquito in a nudist colony.
    I'm still feeling empathy for the people that want Nikon to make a FF camera, for it would allow more choice. I suppose Nikon's attitude is that it is a niche market and they are a lot better off selling a lot of D50s and D200s and makong a whole bunch of new VR's and DX lenses.

    I discovered something this weekend for myself that I'd heard alleged. The D2X is pushing the limits of 35mm lens technology. With careful tripod testing my my 70-200VR, tack sharp as it is, is discernibly better at f4 that at f2.8. This was not discoverable with my D2H but is now visualizable. It, however, seems folly to say the D2X is fussy. It's not that it makes f2.8 any worse...it simply can see the heretofore usable f4 sharpness that prior sensors could not. I'm not that good anyway!

    I love available light and the D2X is sharper than I can hold on my best day. If it's so sharp it shows motion blur at 1/1000th that's a good thing not a deficiency as some have claimed.

    Here I am handholding at 1/5th...I love what the thing lets me do.
    It's way better than most of us are.
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
  11. See.. I didn't need the D2X to notice the limitations of the 70-200 at its extremes. The 70-200 ghosts horribly and is soft at 2.8. Compared to other zooms it is fantastic...but put it up against a prime lens and it is very clear that the lens isn't under f/4.
  12. Chris101


    Feb 2, 2005
    Josh, unless you're a bokeh freak, you're gonna love the 180 when you get it, but develop your manual focusing skills.
  13. Hey, dragonfly...
    I suppose you won't fault me for my current lens lust...in this order...

    BTW...I beg to differ politely...it's not "soft" it is merely infra-superlative. I shot very critically my 300f4 vs. the 70-200VR at the same distance at 2.8. The 300f4 , no surprise to prime aficionados, blows the wide-open VR away. When the VR looked soft some here pointed out that i have a bad lens. Your insight is more accurate.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.