Would you trade the Beast for 17-55 DX?

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by nykonian, Jul 4, 2007.

  1. nykonian

    nykonian

    570
    May 4, 2007
    New York
    I am thinking about the switch because I constantly found myself wanting a bit wide angle. However, 28-70/2.8 is full frame and future-proof.
     
  2. (SEE PREVIOUS POST!)
    If you're looking to go wider, get a Tokina 12-24. It matches up well with the Beast. I absolutely love mine - although I've only been playing with it...nothing serious as of yet.
     
  3. Nope... No way.... Love this lens & it's FL... Maybe I'm different but 55 is just to short for me and if I want wider, I'll use one of my other lenses....
     
  4. Keep the 28-70 and buy a 12-24. Unless you're shooting in tight interiors, stepping back is usually easier than going forward as much as you'd like.

    Sean
     
  5. NO way would I trade my Beast for anything! I actually also own the 17-55mm DX,too, but I reach for the Beast far more often than I do the 17-55mm.....
     
  6. lyricsuite

    lyricsuite

    3
    Jul 4, 2007
    London
    No!

    First post from me on this forum so Hi!

    I have both 28-70 and 17-55, and while having the 17-55 as a one-fits-all travel solution is very useful I often wonder whether I should sell it. I reach for the Beast much more often for reasons that probably defy rational explanation!
     
  7. I would in a heartbeat... had the 28-70....traded for the 17-55
    love the 17-55 for it's IQ and focal range... did not like the focal range
    on the 28-70 as much as the 17-55...
    more importantly, it's a personal decision, it's up to the photographer
    to use the equipment that best helps interpret the way he or she sees
    things... they are both excellent lenses...

    this photo was taken with the 28-70 and is currently being used as part of
    a Magazine Advertisement for Alien Bees Ringflash

    [​IMG]
     
  8. 1FASTZ

    1FASTZ

    611
    Jan 25, 2006
    Cincinnati, OH
    For me, yes. I actually had both at the same time, but ended up keeping the 17-55. As mentioned before, it really depends on the photographer's needs, for example someone dedicated to birding would likely not want either. Both are exceptional lenses, but the 28-70 does not go wide enough for my needs. I did a comparison of the two lenses while I had them and found that the IQ, skin tones, etc were nearly the same for the copies that I had.

    If you don't have a need to go wide very often and don't mind lugging another lens along, I like the suggestion of buying the 12-24 to fill the gap since you already have the 28-70. If that's not an option, you're best bet would be to pick up a 17-55, do your own testing to satisfy your needs, and keep the one you like best. Otherwise, you'll continue to wonder if you have the right one.
     
  9. :eek: Edward - another zoom in your future ? Just giving you a hard time for fun.
     
  10. 1FASTZ

    1FASTZ

    611
    Jan 25, 2006
    Cincinnati, OH
    I think Ed is going to buy one....
     
  11. Scotty_R

    Scotty_R

    370
    Jan 1, 2006
    Virginia
    No. Never. No.
     
  12. rsprouse

    rsprouse

    Jan 25, 2006
    Encinitas CA
    What Sean said.

    -- Russ
     
  13. rubendparra

    rubendparra Guest

    i would say it depends , if you need the 17-28 range for an assignment and that would give $$$ then YES , if you like to get out with one lens that let you have wide angle to short tele then YES , if you want a lighter lens bag to carry around then YES , if f2.8 is critical for your work and need the sweet spot there then YES, of all YES and No answer the most important is your needs , if it's better or worse the 17-55 than a 28-70 is a personal taste everybody here at some point needs to justify carry a $1450 zoom lens in their bags hehehe oh well a $1200 lens is not an easy tool to justify it .


    100 % agree with michael

    best ,

    ruben
     
  14. I agree with most of the posts. I had a 17-55 first, too short, sold it and purchased a 28-70, perfect, but wanted to experience birding, traded it for a 300 F4 + cash, then I purchased a used copy of the Beast about 18 months later. I also have the 12-24 and 17-35 to cover the wide end for landscapes. I am replacing the Beast with a 35-70 and the money saved will go towards my long lens fund. It's a personal choice. I think the 12-24 (Tokina or Nikon) pairs perfectly with the 28-70. Sorry, just random thoughts, but it took three years for me to decide upon the lens combination that works best for me. It's up to you!! :Smart:

    Good luck in your decision.
     
  15. nykonian

    nykonian

    570
    May 4, 2007
    New York
    Re: Ed

    Ed, thanks for your comment. Didn't you recommend everybody to go for primes and now you consider switching to ZOOM? :)
     
  16. I've had the Beast for a few months now, and while it's an absolutely incredible lens, I would consider a trade plus cash for a mint 17-55 (don't pm me with offers :biggrin:). I want to just add the 17-55, but can't afford to do it right now. I find myself needing something wider more than I would like while shooting with the Beast, and the 17-55 is the best alternative I've used....
     
  17. About a month ago I shot a 5 day indoor event for a client that was really a series of mini-events over that period. The first day I was pretty much locked at 55MM. I ran a little app on the rest of my shots over the next 4 days and 63% of my shots were wider than 28MM.

    I shot a 2 day event a couple of weeks ago and 47% of my shots with the 17-55 were wider than 28MM.

    Monday I started shooting the stills for an independent movie being made in my area. The first day's shoot was outdoors and I took 123 snaps with my 17-55 and 43 with my 70-200. Of the 123 snaps with my 17-55, 101 of them were wider than 28MM.

    If all I owned was a 28-70 on the wide end, I would have to buy a 17-55 to get the job done for my style of shooting. This has come as a real surprise to me since going digital because I was always a telephoto kind of guy when shooting film for 25 years.

    The 17-55 has proved FAR more useful to me over the last three years than a 28-70 ever could and I came *this* close to buying the 28-70 instead. For once in my life, I made the right decision. :biggrin:

    Phil
     
  18. A couple of years ago I sold a 17x55dx in order to purchase the 28x70afs.
    I soon discovered that 28mm was not wide enough at times especially in some indoor situations. After trying a couple of 12x24 lens, neither really excited me enough to purchase. I finally purchased another 17x55dx to be my wide option carry around lens. Owning both has been a good solution for me and allows me to choose & carry the one lens that will most likely fit my needs for the day. My preference is to carry just one lens for most casual shooting days.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
Trading Down Lens Lust Jun 14, 2016
Thoughts on this trade Lens Lust Jul 31, 2015
Trade 80-400 AFS for 300 f/4 PE? Lens Lust Feb 8, 2015
Thinking of trading my Beast for the infamous 85mm 1.4 Lens Lust Jul 15, 2008
The Beast is going back after all; trade a 17-55 for one Lens Lust Aug 13, 2007