Nikon17-55 or 24-70 Lens for Wedding Shooter

<p>Hi,<br>

I currently have the Nikon 17-55 2.8 lens and am thinking of getting the Nikon 24-70 2.8 and selling the 17-55. Is this mad, bad or sad?<br>

I shoot landscapes, weddings, portraits and events and have a range of other lenses that I will list below. I feel that the 17-55 is a little soft on the left side of the frame and even though I have had it checked at the Nikon service centre (no problem), I have lost a little faith in it. <br>

Should I get the 24-70 and sell the 17-55 or keep both?<br>

Am I mad to even think of getting the 24-70?<br>

All help appreciated.</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Anthony.....</p>

<p>Other Lenses: Nikon 10.5, 12-24, 18-35, 85 1.4, 70-200 2.8, 50 1.4.</p>

<p>What camera are you using, and what are the odds of you moving to FX in the future?<br /><br />In terms of the practicality of shooting without the wider 17-24mm end of the lens you have now ... well, just spend a day shooting with the 17-55, and don't zoom out past 24mm. You'll quickly get a sense of how much you need the wider end of the lens. Me? On DX, I would sorely miss the wide of the 17-55/2.8. I've got other lenses I need more than the 24-70 for as long as I'm a DX-only shooter.</p>

<p>Hi Matt,<br>

I shoot 3 x D300 for weddings. I also have a D2h that hasn't seen much action lately. On the 35mm front I have an F5, F4 and an FA. I know, I am a hoarder and very slow to part with anything. I have only sold 2 lenses in 25 years. :-)<br>

If/when I upgrade I would more then likely move to full frame, but that wont happen for another year or two as business isnt good enough at the moment to outlay for new bodies.<br>

I must try your suggestion regarding zooming.<br>

Thanks for the advice.<br>

Anthony.....</p>

<p>I was about to write what Matt has already advised.</p>

<p>[Other than getting it to temporarily quench NAS, of course.]</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I feel that the 17-55 is a little soft on the left side of the frame and even though I have had it checked at the Nikon service centre (no problem), I have lost a little faith in it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Have they also checked your camera body/bodies? A lens should not be softer on one side. Either Nikon did not do a thorough job checking your lens or the problem is on the body side. For example, potentially the mount is slightly tilted/out of position.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>[Other than getting it to temporarily quench NAS, of course.]</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Come on, Luis, we all know <em>that's</em> a lost cause! If we let NAS into the conversation, everything else is off the table. :-)</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

Do you think all 3 bodies could be off a little?<br>

For some reason it is in group shots that I notice it the most.<br>

Anthony.....</p>

<p>I found the 17-55mm a poor performer under 20mm for group shots. I and one of a few that likes the 24-70mm on DX. Check the difference between 17mm and 24mm for yourself. If you feel you can live with 24mm on the wide end, go for it.</p>

<p>Anthony, when I posted my earlier follow up, I had not seen your post that you have 3 D300 bodies. Clearly it is highly unlikely that all 3 bodies are off.</p>

<p>Back in 2005, I once dropped my 17-55 mounted on a D2X body inside a well padded camera bag as the shoulder strap on the bag came off. The bag fell stright down onto a concrete floor and images from that lens were soft on the right side. It turns out that the impact slightly bent the lens mount. Nikon finally fixed the mount for like $135.</p>

<p>You should send both the lens and perhaps a body to Nikon along with an image to show them what the problem is.</p>

<p>As far as I am concerned, the 17-55mm/f2.8 AF-S DX is much better for wedding photography on a DX body than the 24-70mm/f2.8 AF-S for the same reason Matt Laur pointed out. The 24-70 would serve a similar purpose on FX bodies. Today, on FX, I would use the 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR instead.</p>

<p>i dont know, the 24-70 is a great lens. it would give you more reach for portraits on DX. and, speaking of quenching NAS (as if...), if you're considering a FF move, you'd have one less lens to buy. i think it comes down to how comfortable you would be using the 12-24 on a second body (keeping in mind its f/4, not f/2.8). since you already have that body <em>and</em> the 12-24, not to mention another body for the 85 or the 70-200. So that's less of an issue than it would be if you werent so welll-equipped for what you're trying to do, as long as you dont mind lugging all that gear.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have both the D300 and D700, the 17-55/2.8 and 24-70/2.8. I have tried using the 24-70/2.8 on the D300 to see how they match up, and the results are great. It depends on the venue of course, but I found it intriguing that in most of the cases where you thought you need wider than 24mm (36mm equivalent in DX), it could be solved by using your feet and backing up. Don't take me wrong though, you need wider lenses than 24 (=36/DX) for a pro wedding job, but if you have other lenses to cover the range, you're all set.</p>

<p>I have my 17-55 f/2.8 attached to one of my D300s nearly 100% of the time. I've shot with the 24-70 f/2.8 on my D300 and find that often times I need to go wider at most venues, especially for weddings. </p>

<p>I'd look back at the EXIF data of your previous work and find out how often you shoot wider than 24mm. If it looks like you rarely do, then the 24-70mm is for you. If, however, you find your shots often go wider than 24mm, then save some $$ and have your 17-55mm looked at. <br>

Mine works wonderfully at all focal lengths so my guess is that something is out of alignment on yours.</p>

<p>I'm thinking that it is all what one gets used to. I had a 17-55 kit lens on a D40 and didn't care that much for it. When I upgraded to a D 90 I opted for the 24-70 lens. I have it on my camera 90% of the time and I love it. I have not found that I am limited at all. With groups just back up a step or two and they will all fit in. At some point this will happen with most lenses anyway.<br>

phil b<br>

benton, ky</p>

<p>I with Elliot and Phil on the 24-70mm on my D90 DX body - it works for me - I don't often shoot really wide. That and my 70-200mm VR lens are all I seem to use now (and I'm only a hobbiest who has a bad case of NAS - the D7000 looks really nice LOL - I think I'll wait for the D300 replacement though.)</p>

<p>I keep my 17-55 attached to one of my D300's almost all the time. The extra reach produces a look unlike anything you'll get if you mount the 24-70, DX body of course. I'd rather have that ability even if only called for occasionally. And wide open my lens is softer at the edges which comes back to me by f4 and then acceptable sharpness appears across the entire image by f8 to f14 then drops off again.<br>

<br />The softness you speak of, at what apertures? If it's all of them then a trip back to Nikon or another lens specialist may be needed and like mentioned before, I'd be surprised if all three bodies were at fault.<br>

I get the feeling that you're going to buy the 24-70 whatever anyone says and if so you'll adore the lens but I'd question whether you need it right now given you have 3 x DX bodies.</p>

<p> </p>