Which to buy 17-55 f/2.8 DX or 24-70 f/2.8!

[dmitry_kiyatkin]

how about a 17-35mm f/2.8. It works on FX and is almost same as 17-55 on DX..

Almost same price as the other two lenses mentioned. The IQ is not as good as the

Nano coated Digital lenses, but I think good for most people.

[elliot1]

Depending on what you are shooting, you may find that the 17-55mm works well for you. I had it and did not like the distortion under 20mm I replaced it with the 24-70mm and am very pleased with it throughout its zoom range.

 

My suggestion - test them both out for yourself.

[michael_beller]

I find myself in the same quandary.

 

I asked myself if I went on a trip to India tomorrow with my D300 and wanted to

carry one or two lenses at very most what would I do? Both of these lenses draw

beautifully and I need the 2.8 speed regardless of VR on some slower DX zooms.

 

17-55

 

The near-term rational answer is the 17-55 DX. I could get the wide (24 and 28

effective at least) and medium portrait shots I want. However, what if I want to go

wider? The 17mm (24 true) setting on this lens has barrel distortion from what I can

tell from decent non-post corrected images. Still, this DX lens may be my rational

choice...a great choice...now. I have NOT used it yet so this is all speculation.

 

Then the other demon pops up on my other shoulder....

 

24-70mm

 

I am an obsessive compulsive, and will want a Nikon compact "Son of D3" FF as

soon as it comes out <$3k. Plain and simple. That is my nature and I admit it.

 

I don't want to debate here, but I think that will happen before year's end for the

simple fact that the Nikon will be exposed by an imminent Canon 5D Mark II. If the

difference in price between a DX D300 and this new FF Canon is <$700-1000, I

would believe many would go to Canon, especially new buyers into high-end DSLR's.

Images on these full frame sensors are tremendous, and frankly, I find crop factors

totally annoying. If a DX lens is not optimized for FF, then call it what it is - 17-55

DX lens a "DX 25 - 82.5mm".

 

So you can see where I am leaning - and yet, I still I agonize. I may go the route if

the 24-70 and a pick up a used dedicated wide that does not look like a fire hydrant.

 

We all know the truism (that I avoid so I can play gear games) is our eye and

creativity make a good picture. Glass helps, but I have seen stunning pictures from

lenses on the used market for $50 at every funky FL there is out there. I am having

most fun with a beat up 50 1.2 AI-S then anything else right now with the D300. Out

of limits comes true creativity. Thus, the funky FL's of the 24-70mm with the D300

are a challenge. ...so what (I am alluding to the advances amateur - not pro who

must earn a living and use some standard FL's for their clients.)

 

I also looked back through many of my favorite shots over the last couple years,

though a slight majority are in the true 35-100 range, it is basically a split decision.

The true 24 FL is important to me.

 

So 24-70mm for today. I have one to try out for a couple of days. If not, I'll try the

other, and if not, I'll stick to my old primes until something comes along that fits the

bill.

 

And lastly, I am truly humbled by the knowledge in these forums. Thanks....

 

MB

[shuo_zhao]

The 24-70 is a "ultra-high quality" lens, it's excellent both optically and physically. It's an excellent portrait lens, but its range feels very awkward for landscape and architecture. It's not that sometimes you can't "step back"; the real problem is that you can't get that wide angle prospective/look you can get with a wider lens.

 

The 17-55 is obviously a standard DX zoom, but in my opinion, it's not nearly as perfect as the 24-70, in terms of optical quality.

[Mary Doo]

12-24mm + <b>24-70mm</b> + 70-200mm should work seamlessly for most

situations. All high quality lenses.

 

<p>Mary

[jbm]

I'm going back to film.

[diane_madura]

Eyad, aren't you glad you asked? ;-)

[correct_exposure]

The 24-70 works on both formats.

[eyad_mansour1]

Diane, I never expected my question would stirr so much good debate.

I am truly happy that I asked, though, as its been a true learning experience. Thanks for all.

[eyad_mansour1]

To throw another question at this very useful thread - what would you recommend if I were to buy the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 instead! This will minimize potential apparent loss! Yes?

[ty_mickan]

17-35mm 2.8 and a 50mm 1.8. My opinion is that a DX lens is a waste of money. In five years time, you will be lucky to give them away.

[h_m5]

<p>I hate to dig up an old thread but I was also comparing these two together prior to my purchase of the 17-55..and the way I see it is that the 17-55 is the "24-70" for the DX body as with the 1.5 crop factor it make it a 25.5-82.5 (24-70). <br>

I know we want the 24-70 but your DX is made for the 17-55, hence the DX on the lens. Also the range can't be beat, whereas with the 36-105, I mean 24-70 ^__^, I think you lose some of the creativity you would've had with the 17-55. Buy the shoe that fits I say. It's a bitchin' lens, nothing to worry about.</p>