Nikon 17-55 2.8 or Nikon 28/70mm 2.8

<p>I own D300 and D700 bodies and shoot events and street photography. I have usually rented 17-55 for the D300 and used my FX lens which I own(50mm 1.4 , 85mm 1.4 and 80-200mm 2.8) on D700 when doing weddings.<br /> I have the funds now to purchase a 17-55mm 2.8 but I am intrigued by the 28-70mm 2.8 (the beast) and have the opportunity to buy one for about the same price as a 17-55 (used of course) If I decide to get the 28-70 2.8 I am considering buying Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 to use on the D300 if I needed to go wider than 28mm.<br /> Weight of 28mm-70 of no concern just wondering if there is any things other than weight that should influence my decision.<br /> Thanks in advance for the input!</p>

<p>Larry:<br>

I have shot with the 28-70 but have never owned one. I do own the 17-55 and love it on my DX bodies. On those a same DX bodies I think it is a sharper lens but this could be a matter of my copy. If you are going to convert to FX then the 28-70 might be the better choice but with DX I prefer the 17-55. It's clarity and speed of autofocus are superb. The color delivered by this lens is fantastic. In short, they are both great glass and they are both a ton to carry around. Good luck.</p>

<p>-Owen</p>

<p>Agree with Owen, the 17-55 is for DX and the 28-70 for FX... so think on the next future.<br>

<br /> The 28-70 on DX is perfectly usable outdoors when you don`t need a wide view, but loose the versatility of a medium range zoom, and if you`re indoors, it became of little use to my needs.<br>

<br /> I don`t see the point of buying a lens too long for DX, and a s remedy, to buy a wide lens for DX. I`s a nonsense to my taste.<br /> Better use the D700 for wide and DX for long... the 28-70 range is great on FX, you can use the DX camera for longer shots (portraits), and if you need wider buy a 16-35, 18-35 or so for the D700.<br>

<br /> Personally, with my two hands I only can use one camera, so the other have to remain without use in the bag/closet.<br>

<br />What I want to mean is that I`d not spend buying lenses for two different formats, and specially, in the opposite way. The D700 do all what the D300 can do except for the pixel concentration; it makes the D300 "better" for macro or longer shots.<br>

<br /> I understand the D300 is your "backup" camera, so keep it as a backup. If the D700 fails, just use on the D300 whatever you have to save the situation, and is that all.</p>

On FX the 28 isn't wide enough for me. 24 is..

But even 24 isn't wide enough on DX.

On DX 55 is perhaps not long enough for general use?

On DX I would chose the 17-55.

(I have the 12-24, which is lovely, but short..)

. I hope my reasoning is helpful to you.

<p>The 17-55 fits the DX format well. If you go with the longer lens you will wish you had something wider. The only reason for getting the longer lens might be if you were planning to FF at sometime in the not too distant future.</p>

<p>My 17-55 was my primary lens for my DX camera. The 24-70 is my primary lens for my FF camera. When I want to go wider, I stitch.</p>

I have both lenses. The 28-70mm 2.8 is still excellent today, even on the D800, although I too prefer to have it go down to

24mm, but the 24-70 costs a lot more. Since you have a D700 and FX is more affordable today, I would not buy the DX

17-55mm.

<p>Larry, if you want a lens in the range of 28-70mm without breaking the bank, then I'd seriously consider Tamron's SP 28-75mm f/2.8 zoom. It's lighter, smaller and about half the price of a used zoom-Nikkor, and I'd be surprised if the Nikkor delivered any better IQ. Just buy from a reputable dealer because Tamron do have some QC issues, but when you get a good sample it's a stunning lens.</p>

<p>In fact the Amazon price of Tamron's 24-70 f/2.8 VC lens with 2 year warranty is around the same as is being asked for a mint used 28-70 Nikkor.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In fact the Amazon price of Tamron's 24-70 f/2.8 VC lens with 2 year warranty is around the same as is being asked for a mint used 28-70 Nikkor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is a comparison of the prices for two products, while no actual price is specified in numbers.</p>

<p>I just checked Amazon. The Nikon-mount vesion is sold by a 3rd-party company, not Amazon themsevles, for $1249.99: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-24-70mm-Nikon-Mount-Model/dp/B007RZB3KM">http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-24-70mm-Nikon-Mount-Model/dp/B007RZB3KM</a><br>

B&H is selling that same lens for $1299 with a $100 rebate: <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/845350-REG/Tamron_SP_24_70mm_f_2_8_DI.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/845350-REG/Tamron_SP_24_70mm_f_2_8_DI.html</a></p>

<p>In both cases, the prices are well above $1000, after rebate. Meanwhile, as far as I can tell, prices for used 28-70mm/f2.8 AF-S are in the $800 to $900 range. If someone offers $1000, maybe I'll sell mine.</p>

<p>I got a 28-70/2.8 Nikkor a year ago, have no regrets at all. I use it a lot more often than I thought I would. Have had several other mid zooms previously, always found myself creeping back to the primes vs zoom, not so much with the 28-70.</p>

<p>I have found that the weight of the lens is an advantage in low light. I am able to use a stop or so slower speeds with acceptable camera stability than lighter lenses. It may not be as good as VR, but inertia helps!</p>

<p>On the wide end, just throw a small manual focus 20mm in the bag to go wider when needed. For around double the typical price differential, the 24-70/2.8 is not that much wider at 24mm.</p>

<p>The Tamron is an interesting alternate with VC. I would like to shoot and handle them side by side with my lens. I do know that my 28-70 delivers images that just look great, AF is fast and accurate, and that the lens feels like it is built to last. VC or VR helps the shooter with stability, but does nothing for moving subjects (people). Other alternates might include the 24-120/4 VR Nikkor. Not an option for me, often 2.8 is not fast enough for indoor sports.</p>

<p>I think the parting though I would add is that the D700+28-70/2.8 is a much more viable available light setup than the D300+17-55/2.8 would be. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>For weddings and just about anything else the 28-70 is going to be a very useful rig. Rather than adding the 11-16 I think I would upgrade the D300 to another FX body.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

<p>I've been using the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 on a D7100 for about eight weddings now, plus some other paid work. It's a killer combo, especially for the money. For this I'm looking at photography as a business, and the less money I put into camera gear, the more $$ I have in my pocket.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>I have the 17-55 & Tokina 11-16 which I used on the D300. Some of my favorite landscapes have been taken with these. The Tokina 11-16 is a very good lens for the price. However, since you have the D700, I'd look for a super-wide full-frame for it and use the D300 for long shots. I have the 16-35, but the newer & cheaper 18-35 seems to get better reviews (unless you need VR). Jeff</p>

<p>i have a d300s w/ tokina 12-24 for UWA and sigma 17-50/2.8 OS for standard zoom. also have D3s w/ 24-70 AF-S and sigma 15-30. if i were the OP, i'd forget about the 17-55 since you would really only use that on one of your cameras. the 28-70 makes more sense since it can work on both DX and FX, but if it were me, i'd get an FX UWA like the nikon 16-35 VR or tokina 16-28/2.8 and stick that on the FX camera, with the 28-70 on the DX body, which gives you extra reach at the long end. basically using multiple formats works best in my experience when you play to each format's strength; with DX, you want to take advantage of the 1.5x crop factor and use it with longer lenses. with FX, you want to use wider lenses. the problem here is FX UWAs are generally more expensive than DX UWAs (although the 16-28 is only $700, so not too much more than 11-16). i'd also consider the tamron 28-75/2.8 which is optically very good on both DX and FX, less expensive than 28-70 (though not as well-built), and gives you an extra 5mm on the long end. the 28-75 will also be a better walkaround lens on d700 than 28-70.</p>

<p>Shun, the Tamron 24-70 VC price I was looking at was the <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Tamron-24-70mm-F2-8-Lens-Nikon/dp/B007VAZB10">"Dispatched from and sold by Amazon"</a> price of £789.62 UK, and I'm seeing the 28-70mm Nikkor being offered used at around the same price from retailers here.<br>

Personally I would only deal direct with Amazon and not any of their 3rd party advertisers.</p>

<p>I do not think that nikon will be putting DX sensor in pro and semi-pro bodies anymore. For same money definitely get 28-70mm - you will use it for many years on future FX bodies.</p>

<p>I think you would really enjoy a lens with image stabilization be it FX or DX. I just bought the Sigma 17-50 and am getting a lot of use out of it doing night shots. You can get some interesting photos with slow shutter speeds especially at weddings getting slight motion blur with people moving while everything else remains sharp. I can go down to 1/25 second with the Sigma and still get sharp photos. </p>

<p>Since wedding or any other photography for money is a business where you look for return on investment I would invest in the most inexpensive, quality lens set available. I would buy the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 non-VC and the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 lenses to use on DX and FF gear. These lenses are very good and money makers, the two of them will cost less than either of the lenses asked about, and they will have the same look for compatibility. I would use these two lenses until money was rolling in. When I could comfortably afford to justify more investment in the business I would sell the DX outfit, buy another FF (D700 or D600) and get the very fine Nikon 24-70mm 2.8 lens or the also excellent Tamron 24-70mm 2.8 VC lens. I would keep the Tamron 28-75mm lens for backup. JMNHO of course. Good luck! </p>

<p>I have a D600 and D3. I bought a 28-70 afs from someone on ebay. had a squeaking motor ( I asked the AHOLE if the af was squeaking and he said "af squeak-NONE!") and it no longer autofocuses. imo the SWM died. I needed a lens to replace it immediately. looked for a used lens. saw the tamron 28-75 for a nice price. bought it within an hour. the af does hunt a little in low light but if you have a flash on top that has the af assist beam it will help a lot. I turned off the white flashlight beam from the camera on the D600. too annoying. </p>

<p>I was VERY impressed. the lens is very sharp even at 2.8 but much more from f/4. I shoot at 4.5 and 5 in larger group shots. at 5.6 its perfectly fine to get everyone in acceptable sharpness corner to corner. very nice lens. my idea was to buy it solely for a backup till the beast is fixed then just sell it. but I may keep it. I had the option of having a 24-120 3.5-5.6 G or I was considering getting the 28-105 3.4-4.5 but this just fell in my lap and it was the way to go. </p>

<p>a bit low on funds but once I get my beast from repair back (crap I hope they dont rape me) ill do some test shots and see which I will keep. only issue I dont like is I prefer the heft and weight of the beast. </p>

<p>btw had the 17-55 and d300 which I sold a few months back. not to be a snob but dx is meh. iq is another level with fx. the 17-55 was stellar. bokeh was nice , same as the beast. both are ok :) nothing like primes though.</p>