Fast glass (zoom lens) Decision

[imagesbymonroe]

<p>What would be the best decision? I have D300/D80 and I do events (weddings, Corp stuff and I shoot a lot of candid street photography and portraits.<br />I am going to purchase the D700 soon. I currently have (3) DX lens 10-20mm/18-200mmvr and 30mm 1.4. I also have (4) FX lens: 50mm 1.8/50mm 1.4 sigma (which is awesome) a 85mm 1.8 and 80-200mm 2.8.<br />I see where a 17-55mm 2.8 (which I have rented numerous times) would fit right in or should I spend the xtra bucks for the 24-70mm ( which I have rented also) since the range in FX is equivalent to the 17-55 on the DX I am told and the D700 is on the horizon would this be the way to go?<br />Is there anything I am not considering or compelling reason that I should go one way vs. the other?<br />Thanks beforehand for your responses.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>If you have real plans to buy an FX camera in the foreseeable future, go with an FX lens. If it's because people who don't really know keep saying DX is obsolete, that's clearly wrong and the 17-55 is (as you know) excellent. If you're waffling, you could either get it knowing you can sell it for most of what you paid for it later, or keep renting.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I disagree.</p>

<p>As long as you're using DX, a lens that only goes out to 24mm as a main zoom will not be the best thing. You can't go wide enough. For events and weddings and such, I suspect you NEED to be able to get the range a 17-55 offers.</p>

[wpahnelas]

<p>ditto peter. if you're using DX, get the lens that covers the range you need on DX. that would be the 17-55/2.8. the 24-70 won't serve you unless you shoot FX (unless you have the wide end covered otherwise).</p>

[rffffffff]

<p>I disagree... I would get the 24-70 and use the 10-20 on the d300 if you need a wide angle. <br>

I still do that myself, as I don't own the 14-24 or 17-35 but I have a 12-24dx and a D2X if I need a really wideangle shot. The D3 with the 28-70 and 70-200 can do almost anything I need on most shoots aside from infinging on the territory of the fast primes.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>You have several choices.<br>

(1) 24-70 f/2.8 G, super-sharp, but expensive and HEAVY<br>

(2) The older, less expensive 28-70 F/2.8 (still heavy)<br>

(3) The lighter, smaller 24-85 f/2.8-4 (somewhat fast, and plenty sharp for event photography)<br>

(4) The 17-35 f/2.8 and use your 50 mm lens for the normal range.</p>

<p>If it were up to ME, I'd avoid choice 4 and go for one of the midrange zooms. But it's NOT up to me, so best of luck in your decision!</p>

 

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>24-70 is a fine range for events either on DX or FX. On the other hand, the 17-55 is a DX lens and won't be useful on your D700 so I'd just forget about it.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Look, folks, for an event... you MUST have a wide-angle to short tele main zoom. Period. When we used to hire guys to shoot events with us, we would have laughed at anybody who had to switch lenses to go from an individual portrait to a big group.</p>

<p>Please stop advising DX shooters who shoot weddings professionally to get a 24-70.</p>

[imagesbymonroe]

<p>So Peter and everyone else who cares to answer, if I go into an event which is of better service to me the D300/17-55 or the D700/24-70mm .<br>

If they are really equal then Ilkka reason is more compelling as to regards the 24-70mm it seems.</p>

[Two23]

<p>Totally agree with Peter. A 24mm "wide" end on a D300 would be torture. Buy either a Tamon 17-50mm f28 or a used Nikon 17-55mm f2.8. Resell when you get another body. With either lens, you won't be losing much when you resell it. I have the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 and it's superb. You could fund half of it by selling off most of your other lenses. Keep the 80-200mm f2.8, of course.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>Rent the 17-55mm when you need to have it. When you get a D700 get a 24-70mm with it. I much prefer to have a good focal length matching the body I use.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>ok, but the OP already has 2 bodies with a 3rd on the way in the forseeable future...so switching from a d80/10-20 to a d300/24-70 wouldnt be sheer folly. personally, i feel the 17-55 is overpriced. its resale value, which hovers around $800-$1000, is what its worth. its not worth it to lose $400 on a lens that wont be essential as soon as that d700 is bought. that's almost the cost of a new 17-50, which the OP could continue to use with d300 when 80-200 is on d700. of course, this line of thought depends on how far away the d700 is. if its more than 6-8 months, then maybe that 17-55 is worth it.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Peter, the OP is getting a D700 and the DX stuff is simply not going to be used for events after that (especially for weddings). It would be a waste of money and natural resources to buy a short-lived DX zoom at this point. BTW I prefer to shoot groups at 35-50mm focal lengths on FX; using an ultrawide for groups may be fashionable to "get everyone in" but I take a bit more care in my photography than that.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>To add, I do candid portraits of people during the events and for that, having a 105mm-equivalent in the standard zoom is helpful, instead of having to switch bodies/lenses to go long (which is what I need to do with FX). Group shots are typically set up so it takes time and there's plenty of time to switch to a separate wide if desired. Personally I prefer to show people with natural proportions.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>i feel the 17-55 is overpriced. its resale value, which hovers around $800-$1000, is what its worth. its not worth it to lose $400 on a lens that wont be essential as soon as that d700 is bought.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If the 17-55 is overpriced, the 24-70 is even more so. Before the price increase earlier this year, the 24-70 was available for around $1400 and I decided to stay with my 28-70 for now.</p>

<p>It all depends on how "soon" the OP gets a D700. If it is next month, there is no point to buy the 17-55. If it is next year, one get take full advantage of the lower price in the used market, thus avoiding that $400 hit when you resell. By the time the OP gets the D700, sell the 17-55 and replace it with a 24-70.</p>

<p>When you shoot weddings and events, it is important to have one zoom that covers moderate wide to short tele so that you can avoid changing lenses and missing shots. That means having a 17-55 when you use a DX body and a 24-70 when you use an FX body. I have had my 28-70 since 2002, but I added the 17-55 precisely for that reason.</p>

[mt4x4]

<blockquote>

<p>Personally I prefer to show people with natural proportions.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Amen to that.<br /> <br /> Nothing worse than a group shot where the people on the far right and left are horribly distorted.</p>

[neilambrose]

<p>If you're planning on a D700 then the 24-70 is the clear choice. I shoot weddings too, and the 24-70 is the most used (and most useful) lens in my bag. Without it, you'll have an obvious gap in your focal lengths, not to mention your existing FX lenses are much less sharp.</p>

<p>I also question how much longer you can use the D80 for serious work, especially weddings. The low-light performance is inadequate and has long been surpassed with other models. Presumably one of the reasons you're looking at the D700?</p>

<p>Given you have fairly broad coverage in DX format lenses, I see no reason why another DX lens would be of much use to you. But without investing in a professional grade FX zoom you may not get full mileage from the D700 for event work, unless you're planning to shoot with two bodies and minimise lens changes.</p>

[neilambrose]

<blockquote>

<p>...we would have laughed at anybody who had to switch lenses to go from an individual portrait to a big group</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Erm. Wedding photographers have been doing exactly that for about eighty years. :-)</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>If the 17-55 is overpriced, the 24-70 is even more so.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>with the price increase, maybe. but it's kind of the <em>ne plus ultra</em> of zooms right now. and IMO its easier to justify a futureproof lens than a lens which may or may not be equalled by 3rd party alternative costing 1/3rd as much.</p>

<p>shun, your advice has consistently been, buy lenses first, then bodies. i think it makes sense to get the 24-70 before the D700--especially since the OP has a backup body and an ultrawide to cover the gap--but as has been pointed out, cost-effectiveness depends on exactly how long before the OP scoops the FF camera.</p>

 

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Neil writes "Erm. Wedding photographers have been doing exactly that for about eighty years. :-)"</p>

<p>I don't shoot weddings. I work at a church and watch the photographers shoot weddings. The good ones and the not-so-good ones... Things have changed. People are not looking for the kind of wedding photography they were looking for 80, 70, even 20 years ago. Those guys would have sold their souls for the kind of zooms available now!</p>

<p>I'll re-iterate... Suggesting to somebody that their main lens for a wedding or event can start at 24mm on DX is just bad advice. Are you going to change some lenses, or maybe have another body with a longer zoom on it? Sure, but a main zoom that only goes out to semi-wide? No way.</p>

<p>The 17-55 is not overpriced, either. I wonder how many photographers are making really good money with that investment and are not sorry that they spent the money.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>shun, your advice has consistently been, buy lenses first, then bodies.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Eric, that is not quite the case. Actually, my advise has always been get the right lenses for your current camera and worry about the future when that comes. If you are using a DX body now and may switch to FX 2 years down the road, it would be foolish to get an FX zoom now and suffer from a lens that doesn't quite fit your camera for 2 years.<br>

I have use this example before: who is to say Nikon will not come up with a VR version of the 24-70mm/f2.8 next year? (Most likely they won't, but that is possible.) If you don't have to have the 24-70 now, don't buy it ahead of time.</p>

<p>Additionally, get your lenses ready before you buy an FX body. We have a lot of threads recently where people want to buy a D700 but has little money left to put some good lenses in front of it. That makes no sense to me.</p>

<p>The key is to get good lenses and don't absue them. Good lenses keep their value very well and in these days with eBay, Craig's List, photo.net classifieds ..., it is very easy to sell them. If one has plans to change formats wthin a year or 2, buy your lens used; most likely you can get most of your money back. That should be an effective way to "rent" a lens for a while.</p>

[neilambrose]

<blockquote>

<p>I'll re-iterate... Suggesting to somebody that their main lens for a wedding or event can start at 24mm on DX is just bad advice.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Peter, you seem to be a very selective reader. If you refer to the original post you'll see the OP asks specific issues about lens choice in an FX line-up to accompany a future D700.</p>

<p>You may also notice that pretty much every recommendation for the 24-70 has been qualified to apply to the D700 -- a choice that is well-reasoned and appropriate for the format, as several posters have outlined in detail.</p>

<p>I certainly agree that the 17-55 would be better for a DX only line-up, but since no one knows how soon the OP plans to buy a D700 it's all rather academic. Actually, all things being equal the best choice would probably be the 12-24 2.8 G ...</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't shoot weddings. I work at a church and watch the photographers shoot weddings</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's fair enough. But since you're not a wedding photographer perhaps you might reserve judgement about what does or doesn't work? Basing observations on what you see (or think you see) doesn't necessarily get you all the facts.</p>

<p>Incidentally, over half of the photographers listed on American Photos 'Top 10 wedding photographers in the world' list use primes in preference to zooms. And yes, they change lenses.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Neil,</p>

<p>from the original post... "What would be the best decision? I have D300/D80 and I do events". Clearly 24-70 isn't the best decision.</p>

<p>Yes, I don't shoot weddings, not because I can't and haven't, but because I choose not to. For about a decade and a half before I started working at this church I worked for a company that did events (but not weddings). We shot and hired people to shoot those events on many occasions. A 24-70 on DX would have been unacceptable. Period. If the OP does events professionally, then all the advice to buy a 24-70 "in case he goes FX soon" is just plain bad.</p>