replace 17-55dx

[fhmillard]

<p>so,i want to replace my 17-55 dx: my 2 top choices are 1. 14-24f2.8, and 2. 16-35f4; help, please.</p>

[dxin]

<p>There are 999 better ways to spend the money than mounting a FX super wide angle on a DX body.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Well, de facto the 16-35/4 VR replaced the 17-55 for me. When I found a good deal on the former, the latter saw less and less use and I eventually sold it. Using the 16-35 on DX was only half a solution though - the lens was also responsible for me getting a D700. I no longer feel the need for a high-end (i.e. f/2.8) mid-range zoom, which is why I am not buying the new Sigma 18-35/1.8 (however tempting the lens is). The 16-85 does a good enough job for me in the mid-range; though if I was to purchase today, I would go for the Sigma 17-70/2.8 OS HSM C instead.</p>

 

[fhmillard]

<p>by the way for d800</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>by the way for d800</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, if you want the same FOV, then the 24-70 would be the ticket. Choosing between the 14-24 and 16-35 is a matter of preference. Wider and faster, but less range; certainly optically better vs VR, more range, and the option to mount filters without an expensive contraption. If you are shooting mostly from a tripod and want to squeeze every bit of performance out of your D800, then go for the 14-24. If shooting mostly hand held - then you can safe yourself some money and get the 16-35 (or even the 18-35).<br>

I assume you have a good reason not to consider the 17-35/2.8?</p>

[fhmillard]

<p>18-35 looks good thank you</p>

[Two23]

<p>Doesn't this really come down to if you need f2.8 or f4? Only you can know that.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>Just to put out absolutely accurate information, the Sigma 17-70 is f/2.8-4 and macro.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>Just to put out absolutely accurate information, the Sigma 17-70 is f/2.8-4 and macro.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for the correction - was typing too fast. It's name in its full glory is 17-70/2.8-4 DC Macro (OS) HSM |C.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<blockquote>

<p>There are 999 better ways to spend the money</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Couldn't you find just one more to make it 1000?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>replace my 17-55 dx: my 2 top choices are 1. 14-24f2.8, and 2. 16-35f4<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What i don't quite understand is your wanting to replace a lens with a FOV of 28-80 with a choice of 14-24 or 16-35?? It's more like, for the money I can sell my DX lens for, what fast, wide zoom can I buy for my FX D800....<em>replace</em> doesn't seem right.<br>

<br>

Anyway, I quite like the 16-35mm f4 paired with the Sigma 24-105mm f4 DG OS HSM...but maybe you're not looking for telephoto 'reach'.</p>

[CvhKaar]

<p>Couldn't you find just one more to make it 1000?</p>

<p>Okay here is number 1000.. :-) :<br>

how about the Tokina 16-28 F2.8 ?<br>

Here's a discussion on that lens versus the Nikon 16-35 F4 ... : <br>

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2992361#forum-post-51171658</p>

<p> </p>

[hugh_sakols]

<p>I'm not sure why you would want to replace that lens? For DX format the 17-55 is a bread and butter lens. I think you will be more frustrated with the other choices. I used to own this lens and only sold it because I went to FX. </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Frank, hoping to not insult you, but you do realise that a 14-24/16-35/18-35 lens on your D800 is a wildly different lens than your 17-55 on DX? You really cannot compare an ultrawide with a midrange zoom. The "default" replacement for the 17-55 on FX is the 24-70 f/2.8. The equivalent lenses to a 16-35 etc. for DX are lenses such as the 10-24mm. <br>

Again, if this is fully clear, my apologies for making the obvious too obvious, but the way the question is asked gives me the idea that it might not be fully clear.</p>

[andylynn]

So you're saying you've been using a 17-55 on a DX camera and now you want a lens that has the same functionality on

a D800? That would be a lens in the 24-85 range. There are many to choose from. What's the budget and what do you

want to use it for?

[fhmillard]

<p>yes, Andy on a d300, but on d800 it works fine -- and its short comings are readily exposed; Wouter, i am not insulted, i am interested in a wide angle zoom to replace it, the 18-35 is cheaper than tokina 16-28 and has higher resolution (DXO); my 28 f1.8 is not wide enough in all situations, and the tokina 16-28 , like the 14-24 f2,8, does not allow filters, plus i have a good set of 77mm filters</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<blockquote>

<p>yes, Andy on a d300, but on d800<strong> it</strong> works fine -- and <strong>its</strong> short comings are readily exposed;<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Frank, what lens is the <strong>IT</strong> referring to, I'm still a bit lost!</p>

[panayotis_papadopoulos]

<p>Hi Frank,<br /> as other mentioned the FX equivalent of the Nikon 17-55 on DX is the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8. Also a cheaper, price wise, solution might be the Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8, a very good lens which offers stabilization as well. If you want something wider then you have to decide how wide you want the lens, i.e. is the 14-24 f/2.8 suitable for your needs? or something with the 16-18mm as the wide end makes you feel better? <br /> If you continue using your D800 on DX mode and looking something wider than your 17-55 DX then the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 (new or older version), comes highly recommended<br /> @Mike Halliwell<br /> IT refers to the 17-55 used on D800 (DX mode).</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<blockquote>

<p>but on d800 it works <em><strong>fine</strong></em> -- and<strong> </strong>its <strong><em>short comings</em></strong> are readily exposed</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Those two statements are very contradictory....<em><strong>fine</strong> </em>and readily-exposed <em><strong>shortcomings</strong></em> about the same lens.....used together??</p>

<p>In my book shortcomings are not fine in a lens!</p>

[john_hawley4]

<p>"... but on d800 it works <em><strong>fine</strong></em> -- and its <strong><em>short comings</em></strong> are readily exposed ..."</p>

<p>Could the OP be using the 17-55 on FX? I understand it illuminates most of the frame at 35mm and above, but of course vignettes horribly at shorter focal lengths -- a fairly significant "short coming" if being (mis-)used in this way!</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>the 18-35 is cheaper than tokina 16-28 and has higher resolution (DXO)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Frank, that's hardly a fair comparison. The 18-35 Nikon is f/3.5-4.5, the Tokina f/2.8. Wider aperture lenses are usually more expensive, with less zoomrange. Resolution is just one of multiple factors to take into account too (yes, most people fret endlessly over resolution, but with an ultrawide, things as how it handles flare, ghosting are pretty important too). Plus, the 2mm extra width of the Tokina are pretty significant too...<br>

You need to first get the requirements clear: do you need f/2.8, or are slower apertures fine? How wide do you need to go? How useful is VR to your style of shooting? What is the budget realistically? Then make a shortlist, then read reviews on those lenses to understand potentials flaws/shortcomings/strong points, then buy, and be happy.</p>

[andylynn]

Another one to consider would be the Tokina 17-35. It's really quite good on a D800.

 

But remember that a lens in that range on a D800 does not in any meaningful way replace the usefulness of a 17-55 on a

D300. The 17-55 on DX is moderate wide to moderate tele. The 17-35 on FX is ultrawide to moderate wide. The lens that

is to a D800 as a 17-55 is to a D300 is a 24-85 (or 24-70 or if you're budget constrained a 28-75 2.8 Tamron or even the

new Sigma 24-105, which looks like it has potential).