24-70mm f/2.8 ED-IF AF-S instead of 50mm f1.8D and 35mm f2.0D [was 28-70mm f2.8]

<p>Hello All<br>

I have D7000 and three lenses<br>

35mm f2.0D<br />50mm f1.8D<br />18-105 f3.5-f5.6 VR (kit lens)<br>

Is it worth to sell first two fixed lenses and buy<br /><strike>28-70mm</strike>24-70mm f/2.8 ED-IF AF-S instead?<br />what about sharpness and other parameters like vignetting, distortion, etc.etc.??<br>

<strike>28-70mm</strike>24-70mm is not cheap and would like to have good lens for good sensor...<br>

I use it mostly for common walk-around photography. streets, people, travel.... I don't need telephoto size now...<br>

Thank you<br>

Peter </p>

<p>I buy the 24 70- 2.8 lens is newer and a very sharp lens </p>

<p>Peter, I think it's a better lens but the 28-70 f/2.8 (much like the 24-70 f/2.8) is large and heavy. For street and walk-around, it might just be too heavy and large.</p>

<p>Selling the 2 primes.... well, the 50 f/1.8 is a cheap lens so second hand it's not going to represent much value; the 35 f/2D is more valuable but a bit in between things: for the people with DX, the AF-S 35 f/1.8 is a better and a cheaper choice (cheaper new than what a 35 f/2 would sell for second hand), leaving the smaller FX market - and there the f/2 might be a good budget option, but most other (far more expensive) 35mm lenses are all better (Zeiss 35 f/2, the Nikon 35 f/1.4's etc.). I don't think the f/2 will get you that much money these days either. So, it may not be all that interesting to sell them actually.</p>

<p>ops. I have mame mistake!<br>

not 28-70 f2.8 but </p>

<h2 >24-70mm f/2.8G ED AF-S NIKKOR</h2>

<P>

<I>I updated the thread subject and the opening post to 24-70mm. -- SC</I>

</P>

<p>I would choose a Nikkor 17-55 2.8 a much better focal range on a DX camera. I had a 28-70 on a D200, but after I bought a 17-55 I hardly used it anymore. The 28-70 and 17-55 were sharper on 50mm 2.8 than the 50mm on 2.8.</p>

<p>I would keep the primes as their resale value is low and they're very handy when you want a small rig. I would recommend the 17-55/2.8 DX for that camera as it is designed for DX and it is smaller and lighter than the 24-70. The 24-70 is a surprisingly big lens. There are also slower lenses with good reputations, such as the 16-85 DX but for street you want a reasonably fast lens, which leads you to the 24-70 and 17-55, of which I would choose the latter if you do not plan on purchasing an FX camera soon.</p>

<p>I generally prefer to use primes for street as they make for a smaller setup (in general) than the fast zooms. However, when there are a lot of people on the street, if there is a big street party or event, then the fast standard zooms become very useful as it's not possible to move yourself as freely as on the open street, and also in the crowd no one is going to care if you point a big lens at you ... it's just that everyone expects there to be cameras when there are a lot of people. ;-) But on a normal day I prefer a kit of 35mm and 85mm primes, maybe an 135mm also, on FX. On a DX camera I think the 17-55 DX is probably the best general lens for "common walk-around photography. streets, people, travel" that you specify. It's not too big to be offensive or too heavy that you couldn't walk around with it all day. And the optical quality is very high.</p>

<p>It is only worth doing if you don't like to crop your images manually during post processing. Or if you don't like to change lenses. And of course you have the money to do so and don't mind spending it. The 24-70mm is an excellent lens.</p>

<p>I have done some basic testing between the 35mm f2 and the 24-70mm at 35mm at find the IQ to be basically identical - both lenses are excellent. The 24-70mm is sharp throughout its zoom range at f2.8. So is the 17-55mm although I found it had unacceptable distortion below 20mm that makes it difficult to use for group shots (faces to the far left and far right tend to be elongated).</p>

<p>I have not used the Nikkor 28-70 or 24-70, instead I tested and purchased the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8. It is probably not as sharp as the Nikkors but is half the weight and pretty resistant to ghost and flare. If I where you I would look very closely at the focal lenghts you use. 24mm is not very wide for DX but if that range is what works for you and you can handle the size and weight of the Nikkor 24-70 it reads as a very fine lens. Most people would choose a 17-50mm f2.8 type zoom or fast primes which don't come recent very wide or small past 24mm from Nikon. I use older AIS primes on my D700 stopped down as I like the small size and weight. I am sure I lose a bit of IQ but I am happy with 12x18 prints from these primes.</p>

<p>You will indeed get peanuts for selling the 35mm/f2 AF-D and 50mm/f1.8 AF-D; therefore, I don't see why selling them has anything to do with buying an expensive lens such as the 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I use it mostly for common walk-around photography. streets, people, travel.... I don't need telephoto size now...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To me, that sounds like casual photography. I wonder whether the 18-105mm AF-S VR can already get the job done for the time being. While the 18-105 is not the best lens around, it has a pretty wide zoom range for a general-purpose lens. If you move to a 24-70mm/f2.8, which is really a party, wedding type lens for FX, your zoom range will be a lot more restricted. In particular, 24mm is not very wide on DX; that is why some people are suggesting the 17-55mm/f2.8 DX instead. Additionally, the 24-70 is very big and heavy for that type of lens; not everybody is interested in traveling with one.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>although I found it had unacceptable distortion below 20mm that makes it difficult to use for group shots (faces to the far left and far right tend to be elongated).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Elliot, that is not an optical problem on the 17-55mm/f2.8 AF-S DX per se. Using any 20mm lens to shoot group shots as you described will have the same problem. And since the OP has not stated that he is shooting parties and groups of people, perhaps it is not an issue for him anyway.</p>

<p>I wouldn't sell the 2 primes but keep them for the times when I didn't want to carry the heavier 24-70. Besides like Shun said they really will not bring you much in cash.<br>

I know most on here say to get the 17-55 2.8 and they may well be right but I got my 24-70 before coming on photo.net and I love it, on my camera almost all the time. I didn't know the difference so I just got used to using what I have. When I need a little wider I put on my 10-20mm.<br>

philb<br>

benton,ky</p>

<p>Definitely 24-70/2.8 is not a good lens for street / travel... I have it and I use it on some events... but for street I prefer primes because are unobtrusive and for travel, when necessary, I have a inexpensive but very good Tamron 28-75/2.8. </p>

<p>For the small size and weight, I'd consider the Tamron 17-50. The Nikon 17-55 is too big for walk-around photography imho.</p>

<p>Heck, buy a used Nikkor 18-70. That'd be just great! You can bump the ISO up on the 7000 with very little penalty.</p>

<p>I keep the 24-70 2.8 on my D700, and it is a great lens for wide angle to very moderate telephoto. It's my favorite, and gets the most use. I happily used it on my DX D300 where it is not very wide, wide angle, but I fully intended to go FX when I acquired the 24-70mm. But, it is not in my estimate a good street lens, and it has very limited appeal for travel use. It is a large, heavy lens. With its very large lens hood, people react when a large, black bazooka is pointed in their direction. It is obtrusive, as are all of the Nikon professional zooms. For travel, the issue with the 24-70 2.8 is again its weight and its obvious size to strangers who might perceive themselves as the subject of a photo. For a few, the lack of image stabilization might be an issue, but it is fast and high ISOs being clean these days make that almost a non-issue for many of us.</p>

<p>Optically and for image quality, the 24-70 2.8 is a gold standard for zooms in its range. The penalty is that one has to be willing to tote its bulk and to deal with the fact that people around you will react to its "awesome" (a quote I have heard a few times) presence.</p>

<p>All of this has been said before in many other posts, which you might want to search for the opinions of others.</p>

<p>Personally, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to purchase a 24~70mm f/2.8 FX lens "for common walk-around photography" on a DX format body unless you know with 99.999% absolute certainty that you are also going to buy an FX body to use it with. You're paying a LOT of money for a lot of image forming glass that isn't actually used. But to each his own I guess, and it's your money, so if you have it to spend there's nothing really wrong with that.</p>

<p>It is a fantastic lens and certainly among the best of Nikon's zooms, but unless you really need f/2.8 there are probably better, smaller, less expensive alternatives for a D7000 walkabout wide-to-tele zoom lens.</p>

<p>you have a d7000 and are considering the 24-70 for street photography? i'd say no for all the reasons others have mentioned (size/weight/cost). what you want is the tamron 17-50 or the sigma 17-50 OS. both are more suited for walkaround use on a DX body. and both will be better optically on a 16mp camera than the 18-105. i'd keep the 35 and the 50 too.</p>

<p>Michael wrote:<em> unless you really need f/2.8 there are probably better, smaller, less expensive alternatives for a D7000 walkabout wide-to-tele zoom lens.</em></p>

<p>Peter wrote: <em>what about sharpness and other parameters like vignetting, distortion, etc.etc.??</em></p>

<p>Peter already has a smaller and less expensive zoom (18-105) and seems to be looking for higher quality. If this is the case there aren't really "better, smaller, and less expensive" alternatives than Nikon's own f/2.8 zooms (assuming it has to be a zoom). There is the 16-85 but I would never consider a f/5.6 lens to be acceptable for "street" - this is because bright sunlight looks crappy on people subjects (usually when people talk about street they mean street photography i.e. photography of people on the streets, is that what the OP has in mind?) and if the street is in the shade then an f/5.6 lens that needs to be stopped down to f/8 to give a good image is already too slow to stop subject movement. There is a very thin window of applicability for an f/5.6 lens for photography involving people in existing light. High ISO ... well, every stop that you increase the D7000's ISO setting you increase noise and reduce dynamic range. IMO this camera excels at ISO 100 and the further you go from it the less excellent it will seem (compared to e.g. D700). So that's why I think f/2.8 zoom is a good choice for street and general travel photography - you can actually shoot at low to moderate ISO in light that has a good quality and stop people's motion blur. A lot of people these days seem to think it's ok to use VR in these situations and they get colorful "blur trails" instead of recognizable people as a result. This is not what I would consider acceptable. But Peter is probably quite familiar with the limitations of slow lenses (he has the 18-105VR).</p>

<p>What I like about the 17-55 over the 24-70 is that it's a different balance of optical quality than the later lenses; the 17-55 in my experience renders people beautifully, and has nice bokeh vs. the later f/2.8 zooms are very sharp, very contrasty (to the point of being harsh) and the out of focus corners of the 24-70 images can have lots of CA and they're not among the smoothest. On the other hand the 24-70 is comparatively resistant to flare and ghosting whereas the 17-55 can exhibit serious ghosting in certain kinds of lighting. However for general photography on a DX cameras I think there is no better standard zoom than the 17-55 DX. And when the lens needs to be small, the 35/2 that the OP has does well in such situations.</p>

<p>I have no experience with the Tamron 17-50/2.8 - I know it is smaller than the Nikkor but IMO it is best to stick with Nikon lenses if you want to use autofocus on Nikon cameras. The third party AF lenses that I've used have had jittery and unsure autofocus. The 17-55 DX has excellent autofocus. Also it is built to last. These things do cost money, especially when you have a complex optical design, putting it in a robust housing that will keep the optical quality over the years is important but it does make the lens physically larger.</p>

<p>A nice site to check for optical quality of Nikon (and third party) lenses is www.photozone.de. They have both full frame (D3X) as well as DX (D200 mostly, but some D7000) tests separately. They were not overly excited with the 17-55 DX for some reason but IMO thatlens is better in real world use than in lab tests as it is the image <em>quality</em> and not <em>quantity</em> of detail where it excels. (Don't get me wrong - it's a very sharp lens. But it has something more than that.)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>there aren't really "better, smaller, and less expensive" alternatives than Nikon's own f/2.8 zooms<br>

I know it is smaller than the Nikkor but IMO it is best to stick with Nikon lenses if you want to use autofocus on Nikon cameras.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>one could easily argue that a stabilized compact 2.8 zoom with equivalent IQ at a lower price, such as the sigma 17-50 OS and tamron 17-50 VC is indeed 'better' (a subjective term, i know) than the non-stabilized 17-55 for the intended purpose (walkaround/street). and there's a tremendous amount of "nikkor snob" bias in these two comments which could be misleading to the OP.</p>

<p>Ilkka, AF is not an issue with the 17-50--at least not on the d80, d90, and d300s--so i don't know why you would invent a problem that doesn't exist on a lens you've never used. and while the 17-55 has its virtues, IMO it is not a good lens for street photography, mainly for the same reasons that the 24-70 isn't a good "street" lens: too bulky/obtrusive. the 17-50 is about the same size as the 18-70, which is to say very compact. it is also very good for general photography, to the extent where i can recommend it or the 17-50 OS for everything but regular pro event shooting, such as weddings.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I use it mostly for common walk-around photography. streets, people, travel.... I don't need telephoto size now...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Unless you really want a 2.8 zoom due to shallower DOF reasons, did you ever consider the Nikon AF-S 16-35 f:4 VR? With it and keeping your primes you can cover the 24-75 35mm equivalent range on your D7000, and 1 EV difference would not be a problem with its sensor..<br>

And even if you say telephoto is not a need now, for any occasional need of a longer focal you could use your present zoom if you decide to keep also this lens, as its value is low and the 16-35 is much cheaper that the 24-70.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>the [Tamron] 17-50 is about the same size as the 18-70, which is to say very compact. it is also very good for general photography, to the extent where i can recommend it or the [sigma] 17-50 OS for everything but regular pro event shooting, such as weddings.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Eric, I'm curious: what are the shortcomings of the Tamron and Sigma with respect to pro event shooting?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>what are the shortcomings of the Tamron and Sigma with respect to pro event shooting?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>these are both fine lenses optically. their relative shortcomings, therefore, refer more to Ilkka's perceived advantages of the 17-55, namely AF speed and build quality. lots of pros use the 17-50 for weddings, sports, concerts, PJ work, street, travel... anywhere a compact fast zoom is desirable.</p>

<p>but in an environment where you need the fastest possible AF speed and are willing to live with the added weight and size, that's when you want the 17-55. if you are on the pro sports or wedding circuit, or a celebrity paparazzi-type PJ, you might prefer a heavier, better-built lens with faster AF. but if your main uses are candids, walkaround, and the occasional group shot or portrait, with maybe kids' sports thrown in from time to time, then IMO you can opt to save the added expense (and weight).</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>did you ever consider the Nikon AF-S 16-35 f:4 VR?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>you do realize that's a fairly long lens, right? also one designed for FX cameras. it's not that wide on DX, where a sigma 10-20 or tokina 12-24 would be better IMO as both a wideangle and a street photography lens. it would be a poor substitute for a 24-70 or even a 17-50/55 in most situations, since its designed primarily as a landscape lens.</p>

<p>Eric, <br>

Yes I do realize it is not a short lens, but the same applies to the 24-70 that's 8mm longer and 220g heavier. On the focal side, it covers the 35mm equivalent to 24-52.5 mm on DX, therefore a wider angle coverage. <br>

Regarding the Tokina and Sigma you indicate I will not argue about quality and usability but you may agree that being wider they are even more landscape oriented that the 16-35. But I have no experience with them as I used to have a Nikon 12-24 on DX that I sold it when I got the 16-35.<br>

My suggestion was already made due to the angle coverage of the 24-70 being to the high side of Peter's main interests, but these kind of choices are rather dependent on personal preferences and vision. For instance, for street I tend to use the 35mm prime (or the 50mm) on FX as it is as discrete as a lens can be on an FX body and I can go out with it for an entire day with no problem. For the same reasons I got a Fuji X100 APS-C that has a fixed lens (35mm equivalent on FX) and can become almost "invisible" when compared to a DSLR, and I could survive with it during a 11 days trip abroad.<br>

Regards,</p>

<p>Eric, to me it seems that the 17-55 is only slightly larger than the 17-50 therefore I do not see why the line between obtrusive and inobtrusive would necessarily be drawn between those two. It's quite arbitrary isn't it. If we really want to shoot without attention being paid to our equipment, a micro four thirds camera or something like it would seem more appropriate than a DSLR at least for daytime outdoor shooting. I'm probably going to get one of those with the 12/2 and 45/1.8 lenses for street, once they become available. The 20mm f/1.7 pancake is also on the list. To me the differences in size between the f/2.8 zooms are small in comparison. Anyway, the reason I recommend the 17-55 has as much to do with its rendering (which I think is "people friendly") as the smaller size and perhaps more general range. The fact that the field curvature which bugs both Nikkor zooms a bit (17-55 and 24-70) is at 17mm instead of 24mm therefore you're less likely to run into issues with the 17-55 when shooting DX than when using the 24-70. To me the problem with the 24-70 for use with the D7000 is not so much that it starts at 24mm but that it's not a particularly good 24mm, and 24mm for street is such a basic focal length that ... well it should be good. Otherwise the 24-70 is actually sharper than the 17-55 (and in the center even at 24mm it is so, at least at close distancese) but the 17-55's sharpness is certainly sufficient for people apps and general photography. When I still owned it, it was my preferred choice for portraits over the 24-70 because of its kinder rendering.</p>

<p>I am happy to hear that the Tamron 17-50/2.8 autofocus works well. I'm surprised about that since even most of Nikon's own screwdriver AF Nikkors focus with poor precision so that usually wide open results are just as much a result of the imprecise AF than optical aberrations. Only with the latest AF-S Nikkors has wide open use become something that I regularly do. Is your experience with the 17-50mm Tamron's AF mostly based on shooting stopped down or wide open? Thanks.</p>

<p>"anotherMike" at the dpreview forums has expressed some lack of satisfaction with the quality of the 16-35 Nikkor with the D7000. He is (IMO) among the most knowledgeable and accurate posters there. Personally I think while the 16-35 is quite long, it balances well and is not heavy. I did not purchase it because the edge sharpness on FX seemed lacking but from Mike's posts it seems also the central sharpness is not a match for the D7000's sensor. Again I think that it's not the greatest idea to purchase an FX superwide for use on a DX camera, when there are smaller, lighter, and perhaps better optically matched wide angles for DX available, unless you also shoot FX or plan to do so.</p>

<p><em>For instance, for street I tend to use the 35mm prime (or the 50mm) on FX as it is as discrete as a lens can be on an FX body and I can go out with it for an entire day with no problem. For the same reasons I got a Fuji X100 APS-C that has a fixed lens (35mm equivalent on FX) and can become almost "invisible" when compared to a DSLR, and I could survive with it during a 11 days trip abroad.</em><br>

<em><br /></em><br>

I'm also thinking along these lines though I would prefer a camera which has a short tele option for (head and shoulders) portraits, along with the more typical street moderate wide angle that the X100 has. I've seen very good results from both Micro Four Thirds and the X100.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Regarding the Tokina and Sigma you indicate I will not argue about quality and usability but you may agree that being wider they are even more landscape oriented that the 16-35.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i wouldn't say that, necessarily. why would i agree with that comment? the tokina 12-24 is great for landscape, but also for PJ applications and travel. i've shot a fair amount of street with it as well. being a DX lens, it's much more compact than a FF UWA. i used it a lot when i was in Cuba for street shooting/urban landscape, along with the tamron 17-50, which is one of the best lenses for that application IMO.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Eric, to me it seems that the 17-55 is only slightly larger than the 17-50 therefore I do not see why the line between obtrusive and inobtrusive would necessarily be drawn between those two.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>au contraire, mon frere</em>. the 17-55 screams "pro photographer." loudly. you can't easily conceal it in a waist belt. it draws much more attention to itself, which wouldn't be advantageous in certain street or travel environments, where you are walking around unfamiliar places with the equivalent of a year and a half's wages for the average person. the tamron 17-50 as i said is about the same size as the nikon 18-70, which is to say as compact as a 2.8 zoom can be. in fact, AFAIK, it's the most compact lens in its class currently made. the VC version is a bit longer, as is the sigma OS, but neither is quite as obtrusive as the 17-55.</p>

<p>according to <a href="http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/2147/AF-S-DX-Zoom-NIKKOR-17-55mm-f%252F2.8G-IF-ED.html#tab-ProductDetail.ProductTabs.TechSpecs">nikon</a>, the 17-55 is 10.5" long and weighs 755g, just over 2 lbs. according to <a href="http://www.tamron.com/en/photolens/di_II_hi_speed/b005.html">tamron</a>, the VC model is 3.7" long, while the <a href="http://www.tamron.com/en/photolens/di_II_hi_speed/a16.html">non-VC model</a> is just 3.3" long. so, <strong>the Nikon is over 3x as long</strong> as the most compact version of the tamron (more if you add the hood). I'd say that's quite a significant difference in applications where unobtrusiveness matters.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's quite arbitrary isn't it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>no,it isn't. i don't think i can explain it in a more objective way than i just did. you can't really argue with physics. well, you can, but you'd be wrong 100% of the time, statistically-speaking.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If we really want to shoot without attention being paid to our equipment, a micro four thirds camera or something like it would seem more appropriate than a DSLR at least for daytime outdoor shooting. I'm probably going to get one of those with the 12/2 and 45/1.8 lenses for street, once they become available. The 20mm f/1.7 pancake is also on the list.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i agree with this comment; i'm eyeing the EP-3 and ELP-3, and the 12/2 as well, although i still have some concerns over AF speed. the m4/3 can also be used with an f-mount adapter, although you lose AF, which opens up more possibilities, if you're willing to MF: with the 2x crop, you can have a 75/1.8, or a 100/1.8, while the CV 58/1.4 would be a 126/1.4 and the 40/2 pancake would be an 80/2. my sigma 50-150 would be a 100-300/2.8, which sounds pretty cool. the prices on the better m4/3 lenses kind of scare me, but all in all, i think i'd rather have an interchangeable lens system, especially one i can adapt current lenses to, than a fixed-focal like the X100.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am happy to hear that the Tamron 17-50/2.8 autofocus works well. I'm surprised about that since even most of Nikon's own screwdriver AF Nikkors focus with poor precision so that usually wide open results are just as much a result of the imprecise AF than optical aberrations. Only with the latest AF-S Nikkors has wide open use become something that I regularly do. Is your experience with the 17-50mm Tamron's AF mostly based on shooting stopped down or wide open?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ilkka, this may surprise you, but i've mainly shot the 17-50 wide open in fairly poor lighting conditions. a lot of it has to do with the body; with a d300 or d300s, the AF speed and accuracy is better than its sibling, the 28-75, and just a hair below AF-S or HSM. as long as it can catch an edge, it can AF. stopped down in good light, it has even less issues. i don't have that many screw-drive Nikkors to compare it to, but in general i don't find this to be a huge issue with an upper-echelon body. i will say that the 17-50 is one of the sharpest zoom lenses i've ever used wide open. it's up there with the 24-70.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>according to <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/2147/AF-S-DX-Zoom-NIKKOR-17-55mm-f%252F2.8G-IF-ED.html#tab-ProductDetail.ProductTabs.TechSpecs" target="_blank">nikon</a>, the 17-55 is 10.5" long and weighs 755g, just over 2 lbs. according to <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.tamron.com/en/photolens/di_II_hi_speed/b005.html" target="_blank">tamron</a>, the VC model is 3.7" long, while the <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.tamron.com/en/photolens/di_II_hi_speed/a16.html" target="_blank">non-VC model</a> is just 3.3" long. so, <strong>the Nikon is over 3x as long</strong> as the most compact version of the tamron (more if you add the hood). I'd say that's quite a significant difference in applications where unobtrusiveness matters.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Eric, nowhere on the Nikon link you provided says the 17-55mm DX is 10.5" long. You must have read it wrong. I have the 17-55mm DX and it is definitely not that long. Nikon's specification is that it is 4.4 inches or 110.5mm long.<br>

And your claim in bold that the Nikon is over 3x as long is completely wrong.</p>

<p>sorry shun, you're right. i mistook mm for inches. that's what we Americans get for failing to convert to the metric system. :)</p>

<p>here's what nikon says: <strong> </strong></p>

<blockquote>

(Approx.)3.4x4.4 in. (Diameter x Length)<br />85.5x110.5mm (Diameter x Length)

</blockquote>

 

regardless, i would still prefer the 17-50 for discreet shooting. you do save quite a bit in weight too.