If you already had a wide angle, what would be your next lens?

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by davidwolf, May 28, 2008.

  1. So I already own a 12-24 and 105VR. I recently sold some primes and an 18-200
    VR and am now looking to replace them.

    I love to shoot wide and often keep my 12-24 glued to my camera, my style of
    shooting is mostly landscape where I have time to setup, or candids while on
    vacation. Lately I've been wanting to focus more on portraiture.

    I'm looking for something to fill the mid range or something that acts as a
    general lens.

    So given what I have in my current bag, what lens would you purchase? The
    obvious choices are the 17-55 and 24-70. So given what I already own, what
    would you go with?
  2. Well, if money wasn't an issue, I'd gt teh 24-70. If it was, Id' get the new 16-85 VR
  3. I do lot of landscape, but I have managed between 28-200mm range. I am yet to buy a ultra-wide angle lens.

    I have used 50-200mm range for landscapes, especially for distant mountains.
    If I had a Nikon system and I had same same lenses as you do I would buy 70-300mm.

    And of course I would buy a general purpose lens ranging from 17mm to 100mm.
  4. if you have a 12-24mm most likely you have a DX body, so I'd say get the 17-55mm.. you won't regret the investment on that lens.
    after that a 70-200mm 2.8 VR or 80-200mm 2.8 AFS.

    I also have that 105mm VR and IMO is such an awesome lens..
  5. Money has already been allocated. So I am willing to commit to the 24-70. Regarding the longer range, a lot of my compositions involve the sea or sky, so telephoto usually isn't a large part of my photography.

    Unfortunately where I live there are no mountains.
  6. You are correct about me owning a DX body. The 70-200 will hopefully come next year :) For now, I want to fill the gaps on the shorter end of things.
  7. For portraiture, i would suggest the 50mm f1.8/f1.4 or the 85mm f1.8/f1.4. For the 85mm, the lens can get a bit costly, i would suggest trying to get a used AI-S one if your camera supports metering with AI-S lens': D200, D300, D3. If you do get an AI-S lens, i would suggest getting a katz-eye focusing screen to make the focusing easier.

    Fast primes will allow you to throw off the background and have beautiful bokeh, the 105 you have fits in well with the 50mm and 85mm if you decide to take that route.
  8. I like mine Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di AF, great lens and not very expensive. -raf
  9. I definately don't want to go the prime or manual route. I just sold some wonderful Zeiss ZF lenses, not because of the quality, but because I grew tired of having to focus manually and change lenses for different types of shots.
  10. You already own two superb lenses, so go with another great one: the 17-55mm.
  11. David,

    I've owned the 17-55DX for about a year (give or take). I just got the 24-70 and have just started getting to know it. Both are wonderful lenses. I'm using the D200 & D300. I brought the 24-70 home to test - - I've decided to keep it. My wonderful 17-55 is going to leave. I now need a wide angle lens. So I'm having to make a similar decision.

    For portraits I feel I like the 24-70 better & you have the wide end covered. That said..... the 17-55 is a wonderful lens & I'm just trying to deal with how I'm going to talk myself into giving it up. This is what happens when I walk into a camera store looking to check out wide angle lenses - - I walk home with a 24-70mm instead.....

    In the fact that you already have the 12-24mm, I would recommend the 24-70mm as your next lens, but the 17-55 is an amazing lens & that's all there is to say about it.


    Lil :)
  12. I use both. I think the 24-70 is a noticeable better lens. Check with your 12-24 if an all-purpose lens with the wide end at 24mm fit your needs. If you don`t need the 17-55 range (that 17 to 24mm run is irreplaceable at some events), the choice is clear.
  13. I would consider 85/1.8 AF-D and 50/1.4 AF-D also. Both are a great lens for not only portraits. And the price is also acceptable. Apart from zooms you already have, I would personally get some good, bright prime lens!

  14. For general shooting, 24-70 starts in almost "normal" territory. I think it's a bad fit for
    DX myself, although some obviously like it. For DX 17-55 is a better match. I know
    with my 18-200 if it started at 24 I'd be mighty frustrated with all the lens changes.

    I say get the 17-55.
  15. Lil Judd,

    May I ask why you are switching if the 17-55 has served you so well?
  16. If it has to be a AF zoom and you want to do portrait then it looks to be a no brainer the 24-70 f2.8. Personally I use a AIS 50mm f1.4 or AF-D 85mm f1.8 but I prefer fast primes to zooms. Its a matter of speed, price, weight and size.
  17. Just to refine my point a bit...

    The reason I suggested the 24-70 over the 17-55 is that they are both very
    exspensive, so I expect you will own whichever you buy for a good long time. I also
    expect that during that time you will own and FX body, and the 24-70 is a full-frame
  18. Well I think for my purposes, a D3 would be ludicrous unless my photos could pay for it. But if a Sem-Pro FX body was ever released at a reasonable price, I would jump on it in a heart beat. Then again, I can't base my purchase decisions of today on something that is yet to be released.

    I think I am going to go the 24-70 route, these lenses seem to retain their value very well so worst case I can sell it with very little loss.
  19. Hi David,

    the 17-55 became my "walk about" lens last year while my sister was visiting with her two sons. There were just times I could not get close enough to simple things due to the fact that I was just not allowed any closer. I now have the 18-200VR to handle visits or trips when just one lens is going to have to do it.

    But my main reason is my little Shetland stallion. I have a smaller arena, but with him being less than 45 inches tall, the 17-55 still left me cropping a lot. I need a fast & easily handled with super IQ lens. I need to be able to stand where I can & be able to react fast going wider & zooming in. I have the 70-200VR, but it's just too large & heavy at these times & I can't work off a tripod. Don't suggest a monopod cause I have one & I simply can't stand the thing. I don't like working off a monopod - - end of story.

    I have been for a long time debating the 35-70mm f/2.8 for this reason & was going to do that, but have not gotten around to buying it. I went into a camera store to check wide angle lenses & though I fell completely in love with the 14-24 f/2.8 - - I just had such a hard time justifying the cost of it with the amount of landscape etc photography I do. So I happened to mention the 24-70mm f/2.8 and as it turned out they had one in the store. I tested it & liked it. It sounds silly, but I do need a zoom & I do need to reach 70mm for the shots of my horse. Also, I'm planning to use it along with my 70-200VR for headshots when I do them for my daughter & her friends.

    I'm having such a hard time giving up the 17-55, though I have to admit - - it's probably one of my least used lenses. But I shoot predominately wildlife in form of birds so I need telephoto lenses. But there I'm covered by now.

    It all comes down to what you shoot & how you need to be able to work. I have a few specific situations when I need very specifics - - still as zooms. When you have a pony going at full gallop & suddenly rears etc you need to be able to reach & there's no second chance for me. There's no changing of lenses. I either get it - - or I don't.

    Lil :)
  20. If you're ok with the 24-70's range, then that makes more sense than the 17-55 since it's newer tech and compatible with FX. Myself, I bought a 17-55 because I need the wide end and I find it complements my 12-24 and 70-200 zooms just fine.

    If I move to FX, I'll sell the 17-55 (and 12-24) then and scratch up the dough to get a FX compatible glass. Given the uncertainty of the future, I figure it made more sense to buy the 17-55 ($1000, 1 or 2 months old) than spend bigger bucks on a new 24-70 and limit myself to 24mm for the wide end. Yes, I have a 12-24 but I'd rather not have to change lenses everytime I wanted to go below or above 24mm.

  21. Whether or not 24 is 'wide enough' is really up to personal preference. I have a 17-40 and a 24-70 (canon)... although I use both, I really could live with just the 24-70 if I had to. 24 is really not that bad of a fit for a crop sensor. It is certainly better than 28.

    The question you should be asking yourself (not us) is whether or not 24 is going to be wide enough for your style of shooting. When you had your 18-200, did you find yourself always racking it out to 18, or were you typically comfortable in the 20's and 30's?
  22. I don't have any of these lenses, nor any experience with DSLR so what do I know... that said..... I'm ready to buy a D300 and been looking at lenses - the 16-85 and 17-55 among those on my list. Lots of raves here about the 17-55 but reviews at photozone.de rate the 16-85mm better than the 17-55mm. Commentary from anyone with experience with both would be great:)
  23. if you already have a 12-24 and are happy with it, get the 24-70. it's more suited for portraits than the 17-55, and doesnt overlap focal range with your ultrawide. in addition to optical performance, this choice will hold up down the line when you add the 70-200 and have the 12-200 range covered with no gaps in a three-lens kit.
  24. Genifer,

    there are good copies of the 17-55 and there are not so good copies of the 17-55. Then there are great 17-55. It all comes down to which you get.

    As much as I often read the tests, I always take them with a grain of salt. The copy I have is the copy I'll believe.


    Lil :)
  25. That was supposed to say "The copy I have is a good copy I believe" - - Sorry bad headache today and I miss things....

    Lil :)
  26. About handling, althought I like very much the smaller, fat&shorter 17-55, in the real life I prefer the ergonomics of the 24-70; better sized to my hands, focus and zoom rings are smoother, zoom ring is greatly wider and softer, you can move it almost with one finger. Construction quality are on top with both lenses, the 17-55 looks built like a tank, more solid, the 24-70 looks more refined, with thinner materials but equally good. I like the fixed glass rear element on the 24-70, acts like a rear cap against dust or moisture. Lens hoods are very similar, the 24-70 one is a bit thicker and obviously very slighly longer.
  27. David Terk -you not get 24-70, bcs OUT of Stock, kiding
  28. I am in the same situation as you are!

    I have also been contemplating for a while. Looked at 17-55mm and 24-70mm: the
    latter definitely too big n heavy for me. After much to-ing and fro-ing, i've decided to
    pick up a 28mm prime lens instead. So for now, my arsenal is: Tokina 12-24mm,
    Nikkor 50mm f1.8, 70-300mm VR and the soon to be collected 28mm f2.8.

    Perhaps one day, might add the 50mm f1.2 AIS for low light photography.


Share This Page