Nikon 17-55 Vs. 28-70

[robert_friedlander]

I have a D100 and i want to get a short zoom and have been thinking

of the 17-55 f/2.8 DX and the 28-70 f/2.8. I know the 28-70 is a

great lens and i have heard good things about the 17-55. The prices

are very similer with the 28-70 going for $1379 and the 17-55 at

$1399. My concern with the DX lens is that when Nikon Drops a full

Frame D-SLR and i buy it i'll be out a lens.

So 17-55 or the 28-70?

Which would you pick and why...

 

Robert

[chris_leck]

How short do you need? On a Nikon D-SLR, the 28-70 is not very short. I have both lenses and they are wonderful, but there is a huge difference between 17mm and 28mm -- often more than what I can make up for by moving backwards with the 28-70.

 

OTOH, my 28-70 focuses faster and the zoom ring's smoothness makes the 17-55 feel a little stiff -- but only by comparison (you'll never mistake the 17-55 for a plastic consumer lens).

 

The 17-55 is a better choice when you need to shoot wide or get in close. It might be better for general purpose use because of the wider zoom range. It's also a tad smaller. If I could only have one lens though, it probably would be the 28-70, just because I *like* it -- it's perfect.

[scott_warn]

I have also been thinking about getting the 17-55 DX for my D70. I have the 18-70 and find it a fine lens but a bit slow. I am not real concerned about the factor of Nikon going full frame, it WILL happen but I expect that I will be able to crop down to the area covered by the DX format lenses. You would lose some of the resolution but for most print sizes up to about 8x10, it won't matter because even with the full frame camera you would want to resample the file for printing. I have never been able to see any improvement beyond 300 dpi print resolution and it does slow the printer down, double the resolution and you increase the workload on the printer by 4 times. Lets suppose the D2X is a 12mp full frame DSLR, that means that cropping to the DX format will still yield an 8mp resolution. The results that I have seen from my D70 at 6mp indicate that it will produce an excellent 11 x 17, 8 mp would be slightly better. Crop or resample, the end result will be equal quality. For me, the use of a full frame sensor will provide the bonus when I mount my 35mm lenses, it doesn't means that I have to stop using my DX lens(es?).

 

I do think that whenever Nikon finally yields to competition and produces a full frame sensor model, that they will provide for the convenient use of the DX lenses. They may feature screens that darken at the edges to show the DX coverage, internal cropping for the DX format, and may even feature an increase in frame rate, all triggered automatically when you mount a DX lens. They may even feature an option for vertical or horizontal coverage, instead of rotating the camera, you just hit a button.

 

I think the question that you really want to address is whether the 28-70 will go wide enough for your needs on the D100. If it's not able to give you the wide perspective you need, then the 17-55 is the obvious choice. If it is wide enough, then the 28-70 is the more versatile choice, you can use it on both 35mm, full frame DSLR, or your D100. Whatever choice you make, I think you can be sure that your lens will be usable for many years to come.

[larry n.]

I would stay away from the 17-55 until it's matured a bit. If you need something in that range, the 17-35 is the proven alternative. 28-70 is also fine, but very different.

[Carl Stone]

"My concern with the DX lens is that when Nikon Drops a full Frame D-SLR and i buy

it i'll be out a lens. "

 

That is pure speculation, and there isn't a shred of evidence to support it. Nikon has

repeatedly said that they are staying with the current 1.5 crop size for the foreseeable

future. Even if a full frame DSLR does become available, it isn't going to be anytime

soon.

 

Now if you want to wait for it, it's your choice, but I don't recommend holding your

breath in anticipation. Meanwhile, there are a lot of images to be made with the

equipment that does exist. Worrying over "what if" will surely prevent any action.

[dan_brown4]

Yes, those two ranges are rather diffferent, I wouldn't even compare those two.

 

I've been shooting with the 18-70G-DX Nikkor on my D100 for a month or so now. I'm

happy with the lens, and I'd recommend it for the other half of you 17-55 versus

something comaparo.

 

I don't think you will ever see a Nikon full-frame DSLR. Makes no sense to me (color

fringing in the outer zones with film-designed lenses). I expect the DX format to

dominate the product line for the next decade or so. I'm waiting for the 60-180mm/f2.8G

AF-S DX Nikkor to arrive on the scene. Hopefully it will be more compact than the 70

-200/2.8 class of lenses.

 

Good luck.

[Ed_Ingold]

The 17-55/2.8 is an ideal focal length range for event and wedding photography. I find my use split between the 17-35/2.8 and 28-70/2.8 lenses. If you need compatibility with 35mm film, as I do, the non-DX zooms are a better choice.

 

I don't think Nikon is under any exceptional pressure to market a full-size sensor. The cropping factor is not as important as some imply. Whether the sensor is full-sized or APS-sized is moot if both have the same resolution and noise characteristics. Not many people shoot 35mm film and DSLR simultaneously, so having a lens with appropriate coverage is more important than complete compatibility. I find I quickly adapt to the situation and visualize the appropriate focal length or lens.

 

At present, full-size sensors have more pixels than the APS-sized sensors. From a practical and historical standpoint, the difference in resolution is not that great: 6MP vs 11Mp. In keeping with Moore's Law, I expect the next Nikon iteration (D2x?) will have 11-12 MP, but still at APS size. Smaller sensors have fewer fringing problems (due to parallax in the stacked sensor/filter array) and lower production costs. Likewise, lenses with smaller image circle tend to be faster, smaller and lighter than 35mm lenses.

[brian_slanger]

I just got a 17-55mm Nikon AF-S DX lens, and paid 80$ to have it shipped from Hong Kong. Impressions? SLOW!!!!! VASTLY SLOW FOCUS!

Severely disappointed! Maybe I got a lemon, not sure. Tried it on my D2H, D1X, and D100, same deal. Bummer because I bought it for weddings........Anyone else have this problem?

[tao_zhang2]

I haven't been lucky with the 17-55mm lens. I sent it back twice to Nikon for repair of its

focusing. Still not sharp. Will return it - maybe it's lemon.