Tough Lens Choice - Broken Tokina 16-50mm.. Now what?

[nathan_spratt]

<p>I have the lovely opportunity to purchase a new lens. I currently have been using a D300 and D70s. Eventually I know I will be shooting with a full frame camera (Nikon D3 or D4 most likely, depending on how soon I get to it). My Tokina 16-50mm lens broke on me, and I have been suffering with nothing wider than 50mm for long enough. I am leaning towards the 24-70mm f/2.8 because it should be more future proof and has lovely sharpness and build. Here are the options I have considered:<br>

EDIT: I forgot to mention that I shoot primary events, portraits and sports (importance in that order)<br>

<br /> <strong>24-70mm f/2.8</strong> <br /> <br /> <strong>Pros:</strong> <br /> Amazingly sharp<br /> Good zoom range on full frame<br /> Solid build<br /> Good portrait lens on DX<br /> <br /> <strong>Cons</strong> <br /> Not that wide on DX<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <strong>17-35mm f/2.8<br /> </strong> <br /> <strong>Pros</strong> <br /> Good wide angle on FX<br /> Medium zoom on DX<br /> Pro build<br /> Aperture ring (non G)<br /> <br /> <strong>Cons</strong> <br /> I heard its not as sharp as the 14-24 / 24-70mm lenses??<br /> Old design<br /> limited zoom range<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <strong>17-55mm f/2.8 DX</strong> <br /> <br /> <strong>Pros:</strong> <br /> Good zoom range on DX<br /> Sharp<br /> <br /> <strong>Cons:<br /> </strong> DX<br /> Future resale value<br /> Not future proof?</p>

<p>I would appreciate any suggestions and thoughts on these three lenses. I would highly preferr to get a full frame lens, so I'm pretty sure I won't be getting the 17-55mm... Maybe I should just try them out, but I'd like to get some thoughts from people who have had either or both.</p>

<p>Thanks again!</p>

[photo5]

<p>go for the Nikon 24-70mm 2.8. you'll love it.</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>Get the lens that meets your current needs. What range is most important to you. I have looked long and hard at the 17-35mm f2.8 for FX, I may just have to pick one up. It can take a filter which is very important to me. For FX the 24-70mm seems like the event lens just like a 17-55mm is for DX.</p>

[bruce_margolis]

<p>Nathan, I think you hit the pros and cons of each lens pretty well, though I don't consider an aperture ring necessarily an advantage. At least for me, I have learned to live without it.</p>

<p>While all three are great lenses, I can tell you that I don't use the 17-35 nearly as much with my D300 as I did with film. Guess it has to do with getting spoiled by the better range of the 17-55DX and equivalents. As for the 24-70, I have the 24-85 f/2.8-4, a decent lens but again, a poor range for DX so it mostly sits on the shelf. </p>

<p>If I was looking for a replacement for the Tokina, I would consider the Tamron 17-50. It is very inexpensive -- especially compared to the three above -- and a very minor investment with great image quality. If you go FX in the future, there is very little lost.</p>

<p>Guess I'm saying the lenses that get the most use are the ones that work best with the camera in hand. Yeah, some of them are DX lenses but if I go FX one day, those DX lenses can be sold just like the D300. </p>

 

[nathan_spratt]

<p>The only reason I added aperture ring as an advantage, is that I shoot timelapse as a hobby. The only thing I worry about the 17-55mm is that when I sell the thing I will loose a lot of money because no one will be using DX anymore (though that probably won't happen for at least 6 years so what do I have to worry?) Plus, selling is a hassle and who likes to spend the hours not getting paid trying to sell a lens.</p>

<p>I'm going to the store today to try out the lenses.</p>

[stephen_worth]

<p>My philosophy is to not sacrifice a focal length I need today for what I might theoretically want in the future. I prefer a lens that gets used today than one that isn't quite right with the body I currently own. For me, the wide range would be an absolute necessity. Personally, I doubt that DX will go away anytime soon, but if you are worrying about that, go for the 17-35. My choice would be to go third party with the Tamron 17-50 screw drive though. It's inexpensive enough to not worry about resale value, and it performs today about as well as the Nikon 17-55.</p>

[shuo_zhao]

<p>All three of the lenses listed are pro-grade optics. But the 24-70 f/2.8 is the newest if not also the best (it does have the new Nano coating that the other 2 lack). Like the way the 17-55 is on DX, the 24-70 is excellent on FX. Event and PJ shooters would almost certainly find the 24-70's FL range limiting on DX; but it's nevertheless a superb lens: good saturation, excellent sharpness and contrast, good bokeh, weather proofing/sealing, blazing fast SWM AF. I'm a DX shooter and I use the 24-70 as my candid/people lens; it's excellent for what I do, plus it'll still be usable when I get a FX body. </p>

<p>It really depends on how important WA coverage is to you for you to decide between the 17-35 and the 24-70. I got a 18-55 VR in case I need to go wider. Of course it's cheap and slow (but respectable otherwise). My "solution" might or might not be acceptable for what you do...</p>

[Sanford]

<p>How did the Tokina break?</p>

[nathan_spratt]

<p>Someone kicked my tripod over onto a concrete sidewalk. It was about a 3 ft drop. It fell and hit the lens hood, but because of the way the hood is attached to the zooming mechanism the zoom internals snapped (along with a bunch of other stuff inside).</p>

<p>I wasn't that upset, because it was a very poor porforming lens anway, and I was trying to sell it at the time.</p>