Which f/2.8 Standard Zoom to get?

[shuo_zhao]

<p>Moray, you should try to figure out what FL would you use; and which lens offers the "better" coverage. Event shooters, PJs, and wide angle shooters generally find the need to go wide with a normal zoom that's also fast, that's why the 17-55 f/2.8 DX is the "orthodox choice" as the standard zoom for the D300. But that doesn't mean the 24-70 is bad in anyway. Aside from the fact that it'll also work on FX, I personally find its nano-coating to be very effective against ghosting (something the complex, yet not nano-coated 17-55 is known for), I also find the 24-70 to have better egronomics (it's slender and long, making it easier to hold; and its zoom ring is wider, which's nice), and it has less distortion and vignetting on DX (although this comparison is not fair: 17mm vs. 24mm and DX vs. FX).</p>

<p>I personally use the 24-70 on either my D300 or D40 very often. It's my preferred lens for candid portraits (I rarely need to go wider when taking pictures of people), as its extra reach is nice to have when shooting close-up head shots (and to prevent the perspective induced big-nose). When I need to go wider, I use a 18-55 VR, which's actually surprisingly good, especially at f/8.</p>

<p>I've never tried the Sigma, so I can't comment on it. It seems to be a good value. But no one can say that the Nikkors are more expensive for no legitimate reason.</p>

[billsymmons]

<p>Get the 17-35 f2.8, you won't regret it and you will have a superb lens for a lifetime. Whether you end up in Dx or Fx the lens is superb.<br>

If you want to save a lot of money for now and save for that Fx body then get the Tamron 17-35 f2.8/4 it's a great lens at 1/3 the cost and works on Dx and Fx.</p>

[dansutton]

<p>i'm in the same position as you. i wanted teh 24-70 just so that if i upgraded to FX in the future, it wouldn't be wasted. i consider this a ten year purchase at the least. anyways, i looked at the 17-35, 70-200, etc. however, just to get my feet wet, i've got a $700 dollar bid on a 17-55DX on ebay. we'll see how that goes. </p>

<p>oh and to mr. david bell, the term standard zoom can be found on nikon's website, as seen here:</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>you have no way of predicting how a lens will work with a future camera</em></p>

<p>Well, there is a thing called "physics" which all lenses and sensors obey, so it shouldn't be too hard to predict how things behave. I strongly disagree about the 70-200/2.8; it had strong vignetting and soft corners on film, but this wasn't widely discussed before FX because 1) almost everyone was using DX, 2) those who used the Kodak 14/n did complain on dpreview but since it had so many other problems it was perhaps thought "it's the sensor", 3) many of those who did use it on film didn't have a means to ensure flatness of the slide or negative when scanning, hence they got slightly soft corners on every image they scanned irrespective of lens, and also slide mounts and labs crop quite a bit of the image so the corners aren't in the file anyway. I did use it on 35mm film briefly, noted immediately the strong vignetting and poor corner sharpness and stopped using it with my film cameras. But I scan with full frame mounts and took measures to ensure corner sharpness. I didn't look for problems, they were strong enough to bring attention to themselves. Since I shoot at f/2.8-f/4 90% of the time, it did come up often.</p>

<p>AFAIK no one has presented a comparison which shows that this lens gives better corner detail and/or less vignetting on 35mm film, compared side by side with an FX camera. Nor has anyone given a physically plausible explanation why a telephoto would show corner problems on FX but not on 35mm film (while all the film age pre-DX tele primes work just fine on FX, right to the corners, suggesting that it's a lens design issue).</p>

[david_ralph1]

<p>I'll second the posts that indicate that buying lenses for the future has some inherent risk, at least for those lenses which were introduced while Nikon shooters were limited to Dx or film only. Two years ago I bought the 70-200mm VR at its premium, pro price because of the rave reviews of its image production and because it would be usable when Nikon got around to putting out full frame sensor bodies in a year or two. 'Bought a 50mm 1.4 for the same reason. It was quite a disappointment to my confidence in storied Nikon lens engineering when FX shooters and respected lens reviewers suddenly pointed out the 70-200mm's failings on full frame shots. I love the lens in Dx -- shots being super crisp, and in some respects that is exactly what was purchased, an excellent Dx lens but a not so hot Fx lens.<br>

In corollary, I bought a Sigma 10-20mm at the same time as my D300. I figured that I would have the instant gratification of super wide angle instantly for Dx. And, I rationalized that when the move to Fx occurred, the Sigma was far less expensive than a Nikon and could be sold at much smaller loss if no longer wanted. There is no disappointment in the Sigma as it has delivered exactly what it was purchased for and has been a real hoot to shoot with.</p>

[dansutton]

<p>i would point out about buying for the future, though: while you may find a lens may not be as sharp in teh corners are originally thought, you know, without equivocation, how the 17-55 DX will be in the corners on a future FX. Also, i just won the 17-55 DX on an ebay auction and now eagerly await the mail.</p>

[adam zyto]

<p>I've owned about 10 Nikon lenses, the 17-55 2.8 is a gem. Not cheap, but worth every cent. </p>

[mcg]

<p>Firstly, sorry for taking so long to respond to your replies.<br>

Secondly, thank you all for the really excellent advice you have given, which has given me plenty of food for thought. (And in pasing, the commentary here seems a lot more knowledgable and intelligent that on many other forums!)<br>

That was spot on advice about getting a lens to help my photography at this moment, Luis, et al. It may well indeed be a good few years before (if!) I get an FX DSLR, so I guess there's plenty of scope to sell a DX one later (if I don't keep it for my D300 as a backup system).<br>

And as Shun says, a new improved 24-70 may well be released long before I get an FX camera.<br>

As advised, I will certainly look into getting a second hand 17-55, as that seems the best option.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For me, the 24-70 range on DX is more useful than the 17-55 would be. I really like having that "perfect" portrait focal length available on my normal lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree in some ways, Kent, that I would miss the portrait focal lengths, but I guess I can just get in closer. With a 24-70, I think I'd miss out on the wide angles, which I do sometimes need to use in tight spaces, and it would be a pest having to change lenses.<br>

So it comes down to changing lens constantly to go from wide angle to portrait, or just moving closer if required with the 17-55.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you want something wider and compatible with FX/DX, there is the 14-24 and 17-35.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I realise that's an option, but my main interest is in portraiture, so I am happiest with the wide angles being at the lower end of a standard zoom, that having a dedicated lens for it. (Obviously if I had the money, I wouldn't hesitate to get one too!)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There are programs avaliable that will analyze the EXIF data on your current shots to tell you what focal length is your most used.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What programs are those, Sasvata? That would be very interesting to find out! Lightroom etc tell me lenses, but not individual focal lengths used.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The issue with buying a DX lens now is that just like you, many will upgrade to FX soon (5 years = >60% FX imho), so, you will see the value of anything stamped with DX go down.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That was a worry. As far as selling my D300 for a D700 now goes. I only recently got a D300, as much because a D700 was out of my budget and because the D300 had gotten cheap enough for me to afford! As I think it will be several years before I change camera again, and certainly not before FX cameras are available at a price level similar to the D300.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I personally use the 24-70 on either my D300 or D40 very often. It's my preferred lens for candid portraits (I rarely need to go wider when taking pictures of people), as its extra reach is nice to have when shooting close-up head shots</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Currently, my "standard" zoom is just the 18-70 from my D70. I like the 105mm equivalent I get form the telephoto end, and it'll take a bit of getting used to the 'mere' 82mm equivalent on a 17-55...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Event shooters, PJs, and wide angle shooters generally find the need to go wide with a normal zoom that's also fast, that's why the 17-55 f/2.8 DX is the "orthodox choice" as the standard zoom for the D300.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That about sums up my needs perfectly!<br>

Thanks again for all the input, I now realise I need to concentrate on what's best for now and will stick with a 17-55.</p>

[lacunae]

<blockquote>

<p>There are programs avaliable that will analyze the EXIF data on your current shots to tell you what focal length is your most used.<br>

What programs are those, Sasvata? That would be very interesting to find out! Lightroom etc tell me lenses, but not individual focal lengths used.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is a freeware program called <a href="http://www.cpr.demon.nl/prog_plotf.html">ExposurePlot</a> that will scan through folders (and subfolders), reading the exif (from any jpg files it finds) and plot the # of shots found vs. focal length (actual or 35mm equiv), iso, aperture, and shutter speed. Definitely helpful for deciding what lenses to buy (or if you're trying to justify buying a particular lens)<br>

It can take awhile if you run it on a whole hard drive full of pictures -- and it'll look like its not doing anything at all (for awhile) if there are enough files. (but it only took ~15 seconds to scan 25 directories with 1544 files -- i usually shoot raw+jpg, so we're probably only talking about 770-800 jpgs)</p>