24-70 or 17-55 ... which one do I keep?

[oskar_ojala]

<p>Kids are small and 55 is short, especially since it will be less than 55 when focused close. Furthermore, 24 on DX is wide enough for most group shots, since at 18 one has to deal with distortions. Personal choices, but if my intended use is candids then I would certainly not limit myself to 55 mm on an IF zoom.<br>

Also, when shooting outdoors resistivity to flare and ghosting is useful.</p>

[george_ferguson]

<p>It was very interesting to read everyone's responses to your question because I've been working on the same question myself.<br>

I've concluded that the 17-55 is the lense I am going to purchase since I will be using the lense to photograph my child as she grows up. Most of those shots will probably be taken indoors and when I am traveling I want a lense that isn't too heavy for carrying around and taking a variety of pictures someone would take while sightseeing. I also have the 50mm f/1.8 prime lense which is an awesome lense that costs very little but I use all the time. I have plans to add two more prime lenses above and below the one I already have and to add the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM lense to complete my collection of lenses that I'll use with me Rebel XS.<br>

My next step is to find the old Canon AE-1 camera that I was given as a kid and learn how to use it. And, maybe put together a collection of lenses to go with it and use just for fun.<br>

Any thoughts anyone on my future plans?</p>

[rwreich]

<p>I really think that you have to consider that most of your shots on or around 55mm would have the same FOV as the 24-70 on FX @70mm. That means that you're still limited at your widest end by the FX format.<br /> The point is - maybe stick with DX, maybe keep the 24-70, and supplement later with an X-24mm when you really can't live without the widest angles.<br /> I really feel like 24-70 is a great range for most things involving people and that anything wider than that (even on DX) is more suitable for landscapes only anyway.</p>

[Nick D.]

<p>With my D300 I use 18-70 or 28-70, mostly it is 18-70 because of wide angle. I agree with Shun, why to keep lenses for future camera if you not planning to buy D700 tomorrow.</p>

<p>"If earth is not flat, why we pay such premium price for low distortion glass?" </p>

[joshloeser]

<p>George, the 17-55 is not a lightweight. It is a very solid, sturdy and somewhat heavy lens, and isn't all that much lighter than the 24-70. Personally, I like the 17-55's overall build and shape more than the 24-70's, but that's a subjective thing, of course. I had a 17-55 for a couple months and recently sold it after I got a D700.<br>

Something few people talk about is that most zoom lenses get used at two primary focal lengths, those being at the beginning and end of the zoom range. </p>

<p>On a different note, I can't help but shake my head at those who act as if the 24-70 is wholly unfit for a DX camera. It is an excellent lens, and just because it isn't particularly wide doesn't mean that it doesn't have its own strengths by way of being a good telephoto at the long end. </p>

[davidsargent]

<p>I think you answered your own question. If you shoot more at the long end you need to keep the 24-70 (regardless of body you go for imo). <br>

As an aside, and I can't believe that no-ones really mentioned it, but you were given two lenses as presents???!!!! Just in case your very generous friend wants to give away any more lenses I would like the new 70-200 VRII. And yes I am on Santa's "good" list :-))<br>

I hope you enjoy whatever you decide to keep.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Shun, it doesn't make sense when you say that the 24-70 doesn't work well with a DX camera. There are those who have no problem with the different range it offers on a DX camera, and many of those who use it actually prefer it (judging by the number of people who are happy with it on their DX cameras). I know at least one photographer personally who is happy with it on his D300, and is using it a lot these days.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Josh, I never wrote that in this thread. The 24-70 does not work well on DX for me as well as for a lot of people. If one belongs to that camp, it doesn't make sense to get the 24-70 if you are going to use DX for while.</p>

<p>If you like to use the 24-70 on DX as some do, there is no point to ask the original question to begin with. Moreover, if 24-70 works well on DX for you, it should be too short on FX. You can't have it both ways.</p>

<p>I cannot comment about whether you should like 24-70 on DX or not. That range is too long for me but your mileage may vary. The point in my original post is to get the right lens for your current camera and not worry about some uncertain future.</p>

[huy_nguyen_duc]

<p>For me the 17-55 is a perfect range on DX. When I want to travel light, a DX camera + 17-55 do well for me most of the time. If I had the 24-70 I would probably have to bring another wide prime with me.<br>

My only grip with the 17-55 is that it's not very good at infinity. Maybe I'm a bit of pixel-peeping type though. For me, if the 24-70 is better than the 17-55 at infinity, I would trade a bit of inconvenience for quality.</p>

<p> </p>

[lou korell]

<p>24-70 is possibly the best zoom that exists. (IMHO) Keep it because it is next to impossible to get right now. When you do move to a FF camera, you will be very happy. In most cases the logic dictates keep the lens that works now, but in this case, the 24-70 is a keeper.</p>

[leighmcmullen]

<p>Totally off topic but I totally agree with Keith B. it would be awesome if an AF-S 35-105 f2.8 existed.</p>

<p> </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>there was a tamron 28-105/2.8 but it got very mixed reviews. if nikon ever came out with a lens built to similar specs, i'd jump all over it.</p>

[leighmcmullen]

<p>I have looked, and relooked, and looked again at that Tamron, Eric, I want it to be awesome so badly, but sadly its not...</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Optically, it is very tough to make a 4x, constant f2.8 zoom excellent. Any 28-105mm/f2.8 with Nikon professional construction quality also tends to be big and heavy. Nikon has been keeping it to about 3x, such as 17-55 or 24-70. The good 4x zooms in that range tend to be f4, such as Canon's 24-105mm/f4.</p>

[rayyeager]

<p>I think the 24-70 works better than well with my D300 ... Ray.</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>any hobby is fun if you have that fun right away. what if those kids and families go indoors? unless you have enough acreage, that will be tight for a 24mm. ouch!</p>

[leighmcmullen]

<p>Shun would a 35-105 fall into that same 4X range or do you think it would be possible to make an FX 50-150 with the same size and portability of the Sigma DX varient? (Lord I still miss than lens...)</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Well, I usually photograph kids indoors with an 85mm (on FX) and sometimes a 50mm.</p>

<p>35-105 is a 3x range. Should be doable.</p>

[ronald_olsen]

<p>I have had both lenses but I sold the 17-55 because I found that the image quality of the 24-70 was much better. I shoot with a D2x and don't find the focal length limiting at all on the wide end. If I need to go wider, I just switch to a 12-24 lens, and no, I don't find it annoying to do so. Usually, If I am in a situation where I am using the 12-24, it's not for one quick shot, it is because I have moved indoors, or am doing a landscape-style shot, and so have I have plenty of time to make a photo.</p>