Nikon 17-55 or 24-70... I own a 11-16 and 80-200 2.8

Hey guys...

 

I'm shooting a d300 at the moment... and own the 80-200 2.8 ... 50 1.8.. and have ordered the tokina 11-16 2.8.... (i also have the 18-200

but can NOT wait to sell it)

 

I am now left wondering which normal zoom I should pick up... here's a little info on what i'm up to shooting these days... TRAVEL... with

that being said... i am wondering which of these two lenses will help me out the most as my walkaround lens for travel shooting street

photography and general purpose stuff... if i want to do landscape.. i have a wide for it... right now i am leaning towards the 24-70 because

I will most definitely go FF sooner than later and don't want to have to deal with selling my DX lenses... so come on 17-55 lovers... give me

reasons why I should buy that lens instead ???

IMO, the 17-55 gives you a much better zoom range on the D300 than the 24-70, which is designed for FX. It is as

simple as that.

 

And if you really don't want to sell your DX lenses when you upgrade to FX in the future, why did you buy the Tokina

11-16?

 

I would buy the best lenses for your current camera and let the future take care of itself. Last year some people

bought the 28-70mm/f2.8 to prepare for the future. It didn't take long before Nikon replaced the 28-70 with the 24-

70mm/f2.8 and all of a sudden their "future proof" lens became an old model. Who is to say Nikon wouldn't replace

the 24-70 with, for example, one with VR by the time you move to FX?

I am using the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8, Nikon 17-55mm f2.8, and Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR plus TC-17E. It's a great line up. I too am thinking eventually I'll head for a used/refurb D700. I just HATE buying cameras though--they drop in value so fast. I get a lot more for my money buying lenses. I bought the 17-55mm used for a bit under $900. My thinking is it won't likely drop much more. I have less money tied up with it, it's a 5/5 rated lens, and is more compact than the 24-70mm. I can likely sell it in a couple of years for close to what I paid for it, and buy either a used 24-70mm or whatever looks good. I'm trying hard to stay off the insane new camera every year deal. I've been using the D80 for about two years now, and just purchased a used D300 for $1155. Doubt I'll buy anything else until D700 drops to near $1,600 used. In the meantime, I have what is for me a near perfect line up of pro lenses that work well as a system. And that's how I look at all camera gear--as a system.

 

 

Kent in SD

Going against Shun is hard for me, but I have to speak my mind & stay true to who I am.

 

With the line up you will soon have,

 

80-200mm f/2.8

50mm f/1.8

Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8

 

& probably getting rid of the 18-200VR...

 

It's a huge leap in between 55 & 80mm. It's one thing to have a gap in between 55 & 70 mm, it's another to go all the way to 80mm.

 

You're going to have the 11-16mm for your wide angle, now you need to fill the 17-80mm gap. Honestly I feel the 24-70 will do so a lot better. Or you could go with the AF-S DX NIKKOR 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR which would really be a great way to go.

 

I loved my 17-55 which has gone on to greener pastures. But I have to tell you the bokeh of my 24-70 is fantastic. That lens is not leaving anytime soon....

 

JMHO

 

Lil :)

>(i also have the 18-200 but can NOT wait to sell it) <

 

Hey, if you can NOT wait to sell the lens, just ship it to me now - ask for my mailing address! ;-)<div></div>

"so come on 17-55 lovers... give me reasons why I should buy that lens instead ???"

 

My experience says D300 + 17-55mm DX = as good as it gets.

 

It depends upon wether you will feel naked without focal range of 55mm > 80mm. I was in your position once and ditched my 18-200mm VR and split my focal range into Nikon 12-24mm DX the above mentioned 17-55mm DX and a Sigma 70-200mm HSM. There are a lot of what appear to be good quality second hand 17-55mm DX lenses for sale about the place currently. I shoot with D700 now and I had no problem selling my well cared for 17-55mm making a modest $$ loss which I made up for more than 10 fold in shooting value I gained with this lens.

 

I did not miss the 55mm > 70mm focal range but you will have to consider your potential gap of 55mm > 80mm. I'd agree with Shun's comments and indeed acted upon his same good advice in the same situation a couple of years ago but lens choice (after $$ considerations) is a personal choice and depends upon what you shoot. I went for horses for courses and did not regret it a bit.

 

If in doubt perform a review of your favourite / best / most meaningful 50 or so photographs and see which focal length ranges they fall into and see if you'll miss that 55mm > 80mm range....

I have had both the 24-70 and 17-55 with the D300. In my experience, the 17-55 range was way more useful --to me--

althought I prefered the 24-70 lens.

 

The 17-55 covered almost all the range I use, just a few times I needed to change the lens, most of the times for a

longer one. I have done some weddings with the 17-55, and thanks God I never runned the risk of using the 24-70 for

that task. The 24-70 was inusable indoors, I liked it only outdoors or for portraiture. That 16 to 24 gap you will have

seems the most useful to my liking, you will be switching between two big lenses to have it badly covered.

 

I understand that others are not wide angle freaks (like me), don`t need wide, prefer that longer range, or balance the

choice in favour of FF. If you belong to that group, you will be so happy with the 24-70, althought seems a bit huge

for a "walkaround" lens. If I were a "walkarounder" owner of a D300 again, I would try a 16-85.

I'm in a very similar position to you Cliff... nice wide and long glass, but with the "standard" range only covered by the

18-200, and looking at the same 2 lenses to fill that hole.

 

It seems that you have a choice of living with a gap between 16-24mm, or one between 55-80mm, so you'll need to

decide which of these will cause less frustration to you. Personally, after much reflection and examination of metadata,

I've decided that the wide end will be more useful in my photography, and so I'm currently shopping for a used 17-55.

 

BTW, although far from my favorite lens, I'll be keeping my 18-200 purely for the one-lens flexibility it offers. There are

plenty of occasions when I don't want to be hefting a bulky bag of expensive pro glass around with me.

 

Chris.

 

PS. Jose, what do you mean when you say the 4-70 was inusable indoors? I'm interested to know why that should be

so.

If you don't need the speed and weather sealing I would buy he 16-85 for now and look to buy the 24-70 when you make the jump to FX later. I feel the 24-70 is not wide enough on a DX sensor body, not for travel anyway.

Chris, "inusable" could not be the appropiate word... I wanted to mean that 24mm on DX is a bit long to my liking, e.g., groups indoors; with that focal lenght many times I need to move furniture, pushing a wall with my back, etc. In certain places and situations it could be really awkward. Actually I dislike to shoot a group with a much wider lens, but sometimes is the best I can do.

@shun...

 

the main reason i went with ANOTHER dx lens in the 11-16 tokina... is that it is the best UWA for my camera now (both

speed and low range)... if I went ahead and bought the 14-24 (nikon)... it wouldn't go wide enough right now....

 

is there any travel photographers out there who have shot with the 17-55 and 24-70 with any advice??? i am not really

worried about any gaps in my kit... i can move forward a few steps or swap lenses if i have a planned shot... but i'm

more interested in a general purpose travel lens with great IQ and how each range will limit me by itself when shooting

travel.??

 

i am not interested in multi-aperture lenses like the 16-85... i like shooting lowlight and night scenes and the changing

aperture drives me crazy.. (main reason for wanting to sell the 18-200)

Cliff, again, my best advice to you is to buy the appropriate lenses for your CURRENT needs.

If you suspect that you will move to FX in the next year or two, buy the 17-55mm/f2.8 DX used so that you won't lose much value when you sell it. That is an excellent lens and should be very easy to sell.

I already had the 17-35 and 28-70 way before I bought any DSLRs, and I added the 17-55 because it is the best range for me on DX DSLRs.

 

As a travel lens, I think it is hard to best the 18-200 for its convenient, but if you want constant aperture, the 17-55mm/f2.8 is an excellent and perhaps the only choice among Nikkors.

Get the zoom that has the most useful range for your shooting style. I can live with the space between 16mm and 24mm. I am usually happy with a 24mm, 35mm and 85mm as a base set, YMMV.

tough call. 17-55 is better on DX; 24-70 is probably a better lens. but we never know what the future holds, do we? so shun's advice makes sense. the 16-24 gap i would think would be less manageable for travel than the 55-80 gap. 16-85 is another option, probably perfect for landscape work, unless you have to have 2.8.

ok guys... you've effectively changed my mind... and i'm now shopping for a 17-55... but if the successor of the d300 is

FX... i will cry like a baby.... but in the meantime... i'll be snapping off some slick pics... :)

Get a Tokina 17-50 f2.8. You can get one used for $400. Like that, you won't feel bad about it's diminishing value...

I recently purchased a 17-55 in excellent condition for $750 and must say I am extremely pleased with it. My 18-200 is for sale, never to be used again.

<p>In the D200 days, I shot the 17-55/2.8 and the Sigma 50-150/2.8 on a pair of D200 bodies.</p>

<p>When I needed extra reach I used the Sigma 1.4x DG APO Tle-converter and the wide end was covered by the excellent Tokima 12-24/4.0.</p>

<p>I now shoot FX on D700 boidies with the following, somewhat odd combination of 18-35.3.5-4.5 AF Nikkor as it is sharper than the 17-35/2.8, the wonderful 24-70/2.8AFS, a 50/1.4AFD for availabl;e darkness, the 70-200/2.8VR and a TC14E II.<br>

Happy until we see a 2499.00 24 megapixel D700s or X.</p>

<p>Ed Michaels<br>

1-888-810-5188</p>

 

<p><!--StartFragment-->

<p align="left">In the D200 days...</p>

<p align="left"> </p>

<p align="left">Good Lord, how can the D200 be referred in in the past tense, as an extinct species, with such ease. </p>

<!--EndFragment--></p>