Which f/2.8 Standard Zoom to get?

<p>I own a Nikon D300 (with a APS-C or DX sized sensor), and the next lens I plan to get is a f/2.8 standard zoom.<br /> <br /> Obviously these are pricey, so I also have to look to future camera upgrades, as it is a long term investment.<br /> <br /> Before FX full frame sensors were released by Nikon, it wasn't really an issue, the<br /> <br /> Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 G DX AF-S IF-ED Lens<br /> <br /> was the option to go for (unless going for a cheaper Sigma...)<br /> <br /> But now, with the possible prospect of a future D500 or whatever having an FX sensor, or if I upgrade to a D3/D4 whatever, I don't want to spend $2k on a DX lens that may only see me through a few years before I change camera!<br /> <br /> I suppose I could buy one and sell it when I get an FX sensor camera, if I am prepared to take a loss, but otherwise that leaves the new:<br /> <br /> Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 G AF-S ED Lens<br /> <br /> which has been acclaimed as Nikon's best ever zoom.<br /> <br /> It would be future proof (in sensor terms), but obviously the thing is, if I went for that, then I'd lose out for the moment on the wide angle part with the D300, when I might need it.<br /> <br /> There's a much cheaper Sigma :<br /> <br /> Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX DG Macro Lens - Nikon Fit<br /> <br /> But I was thinking if I'm going for a quality 2.8, I'd be better off saving for the Nikkor, unless I get this or the Sigma DX version and sell it later.<br /> <br /> I can't made up my mind what to do, so any advice greatfully received!</p>

<p>Buy the one that will help you make the best pictures you can now. Compromising your image-making ability for any length of time because of a future introduction is short-changing yourself. Cameras come and go, but the time and the images you can never get back.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I agree with Luis, and keep in mind you have no way of predicting how a lens will work with a future camera. A good example is the 70-200 VR zoom, which was widely praised as an excellent full-frame lens. Only when Nikon actually released the FX sensors was it discovered that the lens was not as perfect as it had seemed. Buy what you need now.</p>

<p>Assuming you're talking U.S. dollars, that DX-specific 17-55/2.8 should actually cost you more like $1200. And if you take good care of it, you should be able to sell it for $1000. <br /><br />And on a DX format body, that 17-24mm range is very, very helpful. </p>

<p>Unless you have definite plans to upgrade to an FX system in the near future (within maybe 2 years) I'd recommend going with the DX lens now. The 17-55 is great for general purposes on a DX camera. I used it extensively on my D200. When I upgraded to FX, the 24-70 was part of the upgrade. Get the 17-55 now and use it now and start saving for FX (if that's important to you).</p>

<p>If I had gotten the 24-70 for my D200 (had it been available then) I would have missed out on a lot of wide angle shots in the meantime.</p>

<p>There's nothing wrong with the DX format. You don't HAVE to switch to FX. The major advantage to FX (currently) is the higher ISO performance. While useful, it's not essential. There are a lot of great pictures taken with DX cameras. If, however, you do (or are planning to do) a lot of indoor work, the high ISO performance will be an important asset.</p>

<p>Get the tool that meets your needs now and let the future take care of itself. I now have an FX D700, but I continue to use my D300 very often along with its 17-55mm/f2.8.</p>

<p>Moreover, a couple of years ago, some people had the same reasoning as the OP now. Back then, they would buy the 28-70mm/f2.8 "for the future." It did not take very long before Nikon introduced the 24-70mm/f2.8 and all of a sudden, their 'future proof" lens became an old model.<br>

Who is to say Nikon is not going to introduce, for example, a 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S with VR in the next couple of years, before you even upgrade to FX?</p>

<p>Because so many people have "upgraded" to FX, there are lots of used 17-55 lenses for sale.<br />They sell for as little as £500 in England, I would find a mint used lens. If later you wanted to sell, you would not suffer a great loss.</p>

<p>Also when the next generation DX camera's have 15-18 mp sensors, and produce clean 64000 iso images. What compelling reason would there be then, to switch to FX?</p>

<p>I spent exactly one week with a used 24-85mm f2.8-4 on my D90 before selling it, and buying a 17-55. While it took my two attempts, I can assure you that used, clean examples of this lens abound for $800-900.</p>

<p>But it's your vision. Personally, I'd be furious with myself, if I spent $1700 and had to put up with the weight, and the size, and *still* have to change to another lens, or sacrifice the shot. <shrug></p>

<p>Look around for the recently discontinued 35-70, prices may be attractive</p>

<p>I agree with Anthony - and even if you buy new - the 17-55mm is the best lens for general use for the DX camera. As close as you can be to a perfect zoom. When I moved from DX to FX this was the one thing I missed the most<br>

Now I will get the equivalent lens for FX , the 24-70 soon.<br>

BTW: I would not even want VR on that one but that is just me. I only use VR in the longer reach and I dislike the more glass surfaces and complexer design of the VR.</p>

<p>If you indeed have plans to upgrade to using FX exclusively, the advice to buy a used 17-55 DX is very good: You'll have a lens that really meets your current needs and you won't lose that much when you sell it.</p>

<p>If you are planning to upgrade... why not selling your D300 now before its price goes down, buy a D700 and a 24-70. You would loose less money selling your D300 ASAP than buying a DX lens, then sell your D300 for a few bucks and selling your 17-55. </p>

<p>For me, the 24-70 range on DX is more useful than the 17-55 would be. I really like having that "perfect" portrait focal length available on my normal lens. (Though maybe we only think it's so perfect because of the wonderful 105mm lenses Nikon has made over the years.) The look you get with anything much wider than 24mm is quite distinctive and, for me, only works once in awhile and then is worth changing lenses for.</p>

<p>I know this is a minority view, but some others share it. It's very personal and of course depends on what you shoot most often and how you see things.</p>

<p>I can understand -- up to a point -- about this 'future proofing' thing but you really are shooting yourself in the foot with the hope that it will be better in the future. Very few people seem to be happy with 24mm as their widest lens on a DX body. If you are one of those few, then the Nikon 24-70 might be just what you need.</p>

<p>If you want something wider and compatible with FX/DX, there is the 14-24 and 17-35. The latter may or may not be discontinued but it is certainly still available. Both work well on the D300 as well as FX bodies.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>There's a much cheaper Sigma :<br /><br />Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX DG Macro Lens - Nikon Fit</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This lens is already discontinued. Sigma can out with a new HSM (non-macro) version.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>My brother-in-law, a PhD in chemistry, was laid off from Kodak 10 years ago because Kodak foresaw a dead end of film technology. Today's DX IQ has already surpassed the best 35mm film. If 35mm's IQ is what you eventually want, DX has already achieved that. The reason why you didn't pick a medium format then is the same reason why you may not need a FX in the future.<br>

Think outside the box. FX is not equivalent to 35mm, and DX is not equivalent APS. Things is going for "portability" while functionality is continuously improving.</p>

<p>Looks like mine is the minority opinion. I am not much of a wide-shooter, except for when I really need truly wide perspectives. I shot lots year before last with a borrowed D80 and a 28-70 f/2.8 and loved it, and I now have the D300 with the 24-70mm f/2.8 and it works great for me. The only DX lens that I use is the 12-24mm f/4, I wish I had gotten it as the lens on my D70 instead of getting the kit 18-70mm which I don't use anymore. I am not too keen on buying any more DX lenses.</p>

<p>My strategy is not to sell the D300 and acquire a D700 right away, for the following reasons: I like the crop advantages on tele-lenses on a DX body, I think the IQ is good enough to keep me satisfied longer than the D70 did (i.e. at least one, maybe two D300 follow-ons), and I don't want to take even a slight loss selling it and shelling out even more for a D700. I will wait for the D800/D4 to come out and the D700/D3 prices to tank to get a FX body for the few times I really need super-high-ISO and/or ultra-wide.</p>

<p>I meant to say this earlier, but forgot. There are programs avaliable that will analyze the EXIF data on your current shots to tell you what focal length is your most used. If you can take a non-DX lens and get the equivalent focal length that matches your need, you obviously would have the best of both worlds.</p>

<p>Have you considered the Tamron 28-75 2.8? It's great on DX, and I've seen many say also fine on FX, is very light, and costs less than $400. It's the lens I most often have on my camera. Try to find a copy of the screwdriver-focus version, as focus is apparently faster than the newer version with focus motor built in.</p>

<p>You mention the term "standard zoom" in you original post. I am intrigues by the use of the term "standard". Please explain what you understand by this term, why you use it?</p>

<p>Moving on, the Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 is a winner.</p>

<p>You can buy the 17-55/2.8 DX Nikkor in like-new condition for $750-800, $850 at the most. That's the way I'd go.</p>

<p>I bought my 17-55/2.8 used on eBay for $800 late last year and you can certainly do better than that now. It is an excellent lens and I say that as a Leica user so I'm used to quality glass. Buy the lens you need now and worry about the future when it arrives.</p>

<p>Both the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 Macro and the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 are quite well regarded, and available new for about $400. I would get one of them for now. (I did, sort of: I have Sigma's older 18-50mm f/2.8).</p>

 

<p><strong>get the lens that you think will make you happy now.</strong> most of us here are not leica users but we can attest that the 17-55mm is an excellent lens. i use one on my D200. <br>

i have both the sigma 18-50mm HSM and the motorized tamron 17-50mm. they both make me happy when i want to go light with the D200. i'm having fun with the tamron on my D40 now.</p>

 

<p>I would get a 17-35 f2.8 AF-S (which is an awesome lens for FX as well) and a 50mm f1.8... With that, you just got the range you wanted, FX compatibility and a fast prime for real low light. The 24-70s are quite akward on DX i find. Good luck</p>

<p>How about you upgrade to FX now while DX cameras still hold value?<br>

Then, buy the best lens for FX and forget everything about the future.</p>

<p>The issue with buying a DX lens now is that just like you, many will upgrade to FX soon (5 years = >60% FX imho), so, you will see the value of anything stamped with DX go down. Dont buy the 17-55 and assume it will hold its value.</p>