i concede my 17-55

<p>i now must admit my 17-55 is not a perfect match for my 800, while it is an excellent companion on d300, i now notice: much more chromatic aberration,especially on distant scenes with snow, where there is a lot of fringing; i must say the auto cropping works perfectly, but this lens' overall sharpness cannot compete with the 28 mm f1.8 at any distance, this is the only normal zoom i have, i cannot afford 24 - 120,or 24-70; both of which do o get that great of review on photozone, any suggestions for alternatives are appreciated -- tamron 24 -70?<br>

thank you.</p>

<p>that is the 24-120 and 24-70 do not get that great of a photozone review</p>

<blockquote>

<p>i now must admit my 17-55 is not a perfect match for my 800, while it is an excellent companion on d300</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What is this "my 800"? Are you talking about a Nikon D800? A D800 is an FX body, while the only 17-55mm lens Nikon makes is the DX 17-55mm/f2.8 AF-S.</p>

<p>What is this "my 800"? Are you talking about a Nikon D800? A D800 is an FX body, while the only 17-55mm lens Nikon makes is the DX 17-55mm/f2.8 AF-S. yes</p>

<p>As Shun says. This is a DX lens and you should not expect it to be perfect on an FX body.The 28mm 1.8 was designed of FX cameras.</p>

<p>-O</p>

<p>i understand that; what i originally asked for were some alternatives.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>24 - 120,or 24-70; both of which do o get that great of review on photozone</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think both get a pretty accurate test on Photozone. Neither of these lenses is perfect, and photozone reports. In the real world, a lot of pros depends on the 24-70 to bring home the bacon, because it can reliably get money-making photos. That ought to put such a reviews in a bit the right perspective, I think.... The 24-120 (f/4 VR, not the older f/3.5-5.6 model) is a compromise lens, but certainly not bad. Yes, it has some weak sides. But it's also very convenient allround and generally a sharp lens. It doesn't drop the ball massively, except being a bit more expensive than it should be. The Tamron isn't much cheaper than the 24-120, so if that's too expensive, so will the Tamron be.<br>

If you do not find the test results impressive, the cheaper lenses will very likely also disappoint. So, there's the big choice. If you want a lens with a decent zoomrange and good performance, it's going to cost money. It's always a compromise. You'll need to strike a balance between needs and funds.</p>

<p>Apart from lens reviews, look at photos made with these lenses (on sites that can filter on lenses such as here and pbase.com) to get an idea what these lenses can do. It's often a lot more enlighting than raw figures.</p>

<p>yes, wouter the tamron 24-70pics on pbase are epic</p>

<p>but so are pics from the new 24-85</p>

<p>So, there you go.... the $500 variable aperture lens holds up well.... unless you need f/2.8. Or unless you need more range.... There is where you have to balance your wants and needs now. Nobody can tell you exactly what to get as it isn't clear what your normal uses for this lens are, if you have any specific requirements and so on, plus it's about what you feel comfortable spending.<br>

<br />I can only share what made me get the 24-120 f/4 VR (and generally I am happy with the lens) - I like the extra range over the 24-70/24-85, I didn't need the zoom to have f/2.8, prefered a VR lens, 77mm filter, and not as heavy as the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 (way too heavy to my liking). The 24-120 was the closest match, though it exceeded what I wanted to spend. But any other compromise left me wanting in worse ways.</p>

<p>I understood what you meant, Frank.<br>

On Photozone you can find two reviews of the Nikkor 24-85 f2.8-4 . It's up to you which one you believe, but it isn't as afflicted by aberration and it might be the right price used.</p>

<p>Why would you spend ~$2,700 on a camera and then not have money for the appropriate lens for it?</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Why would you spend ~$2,700 on a camera and then not have money for the appropriate lens for it?<br>

Kent in SD because i wanted to determine if the 17-55 would work out, which it does except for the ca problem; but i'll give you my address if you want to send contributions for a new lens.</p>

When you use a DX lens you turn your D800 into a D7000. You might as well have saved $2000 and got the D7000.

 

But to answer your question. Any of the lenses mentioned so far (except maybe the old version of the 24-120) will be an

improvement over your 17-55. If you want to minimize cost, consider a used 24-85 VR or Tamron 28-75. Both can be

found easily for around $350 and will do well on your camera.

<p>thank you everyone</p>

<p>+1 to the Tamron SP 28-75 f/2.8 zoom. Can't be beaten for the price, but buy from somewhere with a good returns policy, since Tamron have some QC issues.</p>

<p>I got my hands briefly on the Tamron 24-70 VC lens a while ago. It checked out reasonably similar in performance to the 28-75 version (i.e. very good), except bigger, heavier and double the price. The VC is amazingly stable though. Again, the sample I used showed some decentring, so Tamron's QC problem still hasn't gone away. Personally I'd get the lighter and more compact 28-75 and augment it with a 24mm f/2.8 prime unless you feel you really need the VC function.</p>

<p>It's a bit odd that someone buying a D800 did not know of FX vs DX differences. Even raw amateurs do months of research before buying expensive camera equipment. Of course you may be a heart surgeon and the D800 was probably an impulse buy like how some of us buy chewing gum :-)</p>

<p>nish, i did quite a bit of research b4 i took the plunge; the digitutor @ the d800 nikon site was a a selling point for me as well as the auto dx cropping, but the overall IQ of the 17-55 on the d800 is less than i had hoped even @ 12mp in dx crop mode; just not nearly as good as 17-55 on d300.; the short of my concern, was not having to invest in all new glass, but so it goes.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>that is the 24-120 and 24-70 do not get that great of a photozone review</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 24-70mm is the state-of-the-art for zoom lenses. I highly doubt you or your photographs will be limited in any respect (beyond zoom range) by this lens.</p>

Frank, if you can't get a better image with the D800 in DX than with the D300, something is wrong. The D800 in DX

performs like a D7000 with better AF.

<p>Your 17-55 should be worth approx. US$800 on the second-hand market. A nice used 24-120 can be had for perhaps $950? That's the trade I'd be looking at if I were in your shoes, rather than one of the Tamrons (good as I'm sure they are).</p>

<p>C</p>

<p>Frank, there is absolutely no reason for you to see any difference whatsoever between the DX image of the D800 and the full DX image of the D300.</p>

<p>I'm getting the feeling that the OP bought the D800 and blew his budget without considering what lens will "complement" the D800's potential.</p>

<p>The D800 is known to show up mediocre lenses. Perhaps the OP should have bought a D600 instead, leaving a grand on the table to buy a really good lens.</p>

<p>Frank, think I actually understand your point. I have used the 17-55 on my D800 as well and didn't think too much about it, especially when my 24-70 was out of commission. </p>

<p>I believe your best alternative is the 24-85 f/2.8. It is a good lens for full frame in comparable range. Here is a comprehensive review: http://www.bythom.com/2485lens.htm</p>

<p>Good luck! :)</p>

<p>elliot, that was my impression too, and technically correct , but , whereas, the auto crop works perfectly, there are issues -- in spring i took a series of photos with 17-55 and d800, where fallen leaves were still on ground and bronze in color, the leaves in the image looked like they were painted and scalloped, no amount of ps could overcome that. thank you<br>

mary the new 24-85 is high on my list right now, it is not 2.8, but that is not a concern, my 300mm f4 is more than i had hoped -- epic; as is the 28mm 1.8, thank you, later this year, iwill spring for 24-70 or 24-120.</p>