Input on AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

<p>I'm looking for some input on the AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED. I'm wanting to buy a wide angle and was looking at the <strong>AF-S Zoom Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED. </strong> But with the shortage that seems to be plaguing the photography community I have been loking into other lenses.</p>

<p>I shoot with a D300 and with the 1.5 crop factor the 24-70 would be more like a 36-105. Not quit as wide as I had hoped to get. So I began looking into the 17-55. This would esentially give me a 25.5-82.5. Which is closer to were I really would like to be I think. I shoot a mixture of Sports and candid portrait style shots, the main style being sports action for which I use an 80-200 (120-300 crop factor). The lens has to be a f2.8 for shooting indoors and out under the HS stadium lights.</p>

<p><em><strong>So here are my great questions.</strong> </em><br>

<strong>Q. How does the 24-70mm stack up against the 17-55mm?</strong><br>

I have seen the specs. What is your opinion and or experience?</p>

<p><strong>Q. Is the 24-70mm worth waiting for over the 17-55mm as far as getting a good wide angle?</strong></p>

<p>I know the 17-55mm won't go on a full frame sensor body so I could be limiting myself there. But since I just bought the D300 I'm not planning to up grade for a few more year I hope. And if I do I can always continue to use the 17-55mm on the D300 body and use the it as my backup.</p>

<p><strong>What are your thoughts "Buy the 17-55mm or wait for the 24-70mm"?</strong></p>

<p>David,<br>

Having rented the 24-70 and owning the 17-55, I'd say they're both fantastic lenses which have their place. You pretty much summed everything up, and your line:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Not quit as wide as I had hoped to get.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Pretty much means, to me, you've talked yourself into the 17-55. You've already got an 80-200, so what are you waiting for? :) You also said you just got the D300 and don't plan to upgrade to FX anytime soon, so there's another reason the 17-55 won't hold you back.<br>

You can always sell it. The pro-grade lenses hold value well, if you take care of it.<br>

Just get it. Or if you're really that torn, see about renting/borrowing them somewhere.</p>

<p>David, I was just facing a similar decision - though it did not involve the 24-70. It looks like the 17-55 is the better choice for you for the same reason as mine: I have three different lenses to cover the range from 12 to 85 mm - 12-24/4, 18/3.5-4.5 and 24-85/3.5-4.5 AF-S and found that the 18-35 alone did not work well as a walk-around (often too short at the long end but fine at the short end - where is is unfortunately at its weakest performance; it is better than the 24-85 in the range where they overlap though). The break at 24mm between the 12-24 and 24-85 didn't work for me - it forced me to always carry both lenses and constantly switch between them. The 24-70, excellent as it may be, won't change that.<br>

The recent purchase of a Tokina 11-16/2.8 didn't let me stop at the half-way marker and I was looking into replacing the 12-24 and 24-85 (the 18-35 is already sold). Between the Tamron 17-50/2.8 and the Nikon 17-55/2.8, I decided for the latter as I expect the lens to be my workhorse and I wanted the better build. The first one I purchased didn't quite work out ( http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00UCV8 ) - I hope for better luck with its replacement which is currently on its way.</p>

<p>Get the lens for your camera, not for one that you may or may not own one day. That lens is the 17-55. Switching lenses on DX every time you want to go wider than 24 would be a pain in the neck.</p>

<p>I have the 17-55mm and 80-200 combo on the D200, and I am very happy with it. The 24-70 is a lens I will be getting if I upgrade to FX. Until then, the 17-55 D200/D300 combo is unbeatable. If you really don't think you'll be upgrading to FX and like the range of the 17-55, go with the 17-55. The optics on both lenses are excellent. The 24-70 is a bit of an awkward range on DX. Really only good for portraits, so far as I can tell.</p>

<p>Keep in mind, for the price of the 24-70, you can get the 17-55 and prime, flash, or ultra-wide. And, the optics aren't significantly different enough between the two lenses, to justify the huge price difference.</p>

<p>I've seen the 17-55's go for $750-$1000 in my area, if you're willing to go the used route. </p>

<p>Richard Wood</p>

<p>Thanks for all the input. I bucked up and boutght the 17-55mm this morning from B&H. Should be here on Tues.</p>

<p>I know I will up grade to the D3 or higher at some point but I have a ways to go before I can spend 4k on a new body so.... This lens I think will work very well for me in the mean time.</p>

<p>Let us know how you like it!</p>