24-70 2.8 DX alternative

[ross_lipman]

I know the 24-70 2.8 FX lens is outstanding. Is there a DX alternative that covers the same range (24-70) with the same level of

performance ? I use a d7100. Thanks.

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>That covers the 24-70 <i>35mm equivalent</i> range? (Otherwise I guess you'd be happy actually putting the 24-70 on your DX camera.) Not quite with the same quality. If you don't mind a somewhat reduced range, the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 is very well-regarded, and it's the only option that gets close to the depth of field control of the 24-70 at f/2.8 on a full-frame camera. If you want a fuller range and care less about aperture, Nikon's old 17-55 f/2.8 was their DX mid-range "pro" lens, but it's not a very new design. You may do better with third-party options.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>What exactly are you looking for? A lens with 24-70mm focal range but one that covers only the DX image circle I don't believe to exist. If you want a lens that covers similar angle of view range on DX that the 24-70 covers on FX then there are some options. There is the Nikon 17-55/2.8G AF-S DX Nikkor which is the DX counterpart of the 24-70. The 17-55 doesn't have nano coating and it is a design with some propensity to flare and ghosting. Otherwise I find a very balanced lens with good image quality and excellent handling and build quality. I haven't used it in a long time though, so you may want to check some newer tests to see how it works on 24MP DX bodies. I know that the 24-70 is sharper wide open than the 17-55 but depending on what you want to do with it, the latter may be a better fit to the application. I felt the 17-55 is an excellent lens for images of people and portraits in terms of its rendering. <br /> <br />Sigma makes a 18-35mm f/1.8 for DX that you may want to consider, and there are also 17-50mm f/2.8 lenses by several manufacturers. These are lower cost than the Nikon 17-55/2.8. Photozone.de has 16MP D7000 tests of Tamron and Sigma 17-50/2.8 as well as the Nikkor and apparently they're going to bring out new tests on 24MP DX later on. From a quick glance it seems the Nikkor has better corner sharpness and nicer bokeh than the two 17-50's. Photozone don't seem to have the 18-35/1.8 tested on Nikon cameras yet but on Canon APS-C they do have a test report and it seems the lens is excellent. But it doesn't quite reach the short tele focal lengths that would be needed for head and shoulders portraits, so that makes it a bit less versatile.</p>

<p>Personally I would choose between the 17-55/2.8 Nikkor and the 18-35/1.8 Sigma. The Nikkor is readily available on the 2nd hand market and a clean used copy which you can test in person before buying would be one way to cut down on the purchase cost. If you don't need more than the 2X range of the 18-35/1.8 then I would at least give it some consideration due to the high optical quality that it seems to have, according to several reviews. </p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>I own the 17-55 and still use it on my d7100 even though I have moved to FF. It is a spectacular lens and I have had no flare or ghosting issues with it. I do suggest using a hood with it.</p>

<p>My only concern is that it is a tank and can weigh you down over the course of a long day.</p>

<p>-O</p>

 

[craig_shearman1]

<p>The 17-55 is an excellent lens and is roughly the DX equivalent of 24-70. But I simply use a Sigma 24-70 and a Tamron 70-200 on my D7000. Only DX lens I use is a Tokina 12-24.</p>

[Rick Helmke]

<p>The 17-55/2.8 is, to me anyway, the best zoom Nikon makes for DX format. Not the cheapest but a great lens.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

[Palouse]

<p>I second Owen's observations. A wonderful lens on DX bodies--I used mine on a D2X.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I have no doubt that the 17-55 f/2.8 is Nikon's best pro mid-range DX zoom. It's also Nikon's <i>only</i> pro mid-range DX zoom. I'd be interested to know whether people feel the third-party options (other than the aforementioned 18-35 Sigma, which is spectacular but doesn't quite do the same thing) are viable alternatives - I'm sure I've heard this before, but as an FX shooter, it never sinks in. Sigma, Tokina and Tamron all have options for "pro" mid-range zooms. I'll believe people here if they tell me the Nikkor is optically the best option, but I could also believe that it isn't, and it's certainly not the cheapest. A quick poke on <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/17-50mm-f-2.8-EX-DC-OS-HSM-Nikon-on-Nikon-D7100-versus-AF-S-DX-Zoom-Nikkor-17-55mm-f-2.8G-IF-ED-on-Nikon-D7100-versus-Tamron-SP-17-50mm-F28-Di-II-XR-VC-LD-Aspherical-IF-Nikon-on-Nikon-D7100__377_865_173_865_498_865">DxO</a> (their new interface is really not a vast improvement, btw) suggests that none of them exactly disguish themselves well - based on that, I'd say the Nikkor is probably the best of the bunch, but it seems to be very soft at the 55mm end. You may have different priorities.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>based on that, I'd say the Nikkor is probably the best of the bunch, but it seems to be very soft at the 55mm end. You may have different priorities.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>there's always a danger in evaluating a lens without actually having used it -- or its alternatives. ive been using the sigma 17-50 OS since 2010 for a DX pro-spec zoom, and have shot just about everything with it, including numerous events and photojournalism assignments. since i also have the nikon 24-70 for FX, i can compare performance across formats. optically, there's no real discernible difference in most cases, although i would give the FX nikon a slight edge in edge quality wide open. prior to that, i had the tamron 17-50 (non-VC, non-micromotor) which was dead sharp at 2.8 (sharper than the 24-70). if i was buying today, i'd take a long look at the sigma 18-35 if i was mainly concerned about IQ, with the caveat that the range is quite short and you'd ideally want a 50-150 to close the gap at telephoto. the advantage of the 18-35 is that it's not only the most modern design, but gives you more shallow DoF and low-light performance than a 2.8 zoom, although i wouldnt expect 85mm bokeh at the 35mm focal length.</p>

<p>i would have no qualms about purchasing either 17-50 again, really no complaints about the performance or functionality. no way would i pay the $1300 that nikon wants for a new 17-55, which is a venerable lens from 2003 and may be more susceptible to flare than newer lenses. i <em>would</em> consider a good condition used 17-55 for < $800 IF i did a lot of outdoor events and situations where the lens is gonna get dinged often. at this point, the nikkor can clearly claim superior build quality, but the weight makes it less practical for walkaround use. in terms of optical quality, the sigma and tamron hold their own and may be better. if you need stabilization, the nikkor doesnt have it. the other thing about that lens being so costly is that even a used sample costs more than an Fuji 18-55 <em>with a body</em>, which is quite a good lens and very compact too, with stabilization. for $800, you could also get a Panasonic LX100 which has a 24-70 2.8 built-in. i realize that doesn't help a d7100 shooter, but just trying to lend a sense of perspective in today's camera market--which has many more options than in 2003.</p>

<p>To the OP, when you say "level of performance," it makes me wonder what you are going to use it for. the 24-70 is a pro-grade lens, as is the 17-55. that doesn't mean they are optically better than their competitors, just built tougher and designed for challenging shooting conditions where fast AF in a must. for more casual usage, such as general walkaround or landscape, such performance might be overkill.</p><div></div>

[Thomas J.]

<p>I have a Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 and have been using it for years on my D7000 for events, PJ, and studio portraits. The lens is so good I haven't even thought about using anything else all this time. I guess I'd be interested in the FX set up but I believe the 24-70mm f/2.8 is bigger and heavier than the 17-55mm, but I could certainly be wrong about that.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>as hinted before, there's not a lot optically separating these lenses, with the possible exception of the 18-35. it's a different story when it comes to weight:</p>

<p>nikon 17-55: 751g<br>

sigma 17-50: 565g<br>

tamron 17-50: 430g<br>

tamron 17-50 VC: 570g<br>

sigma 18-35: 811g<br>

(just for kicks, the 24-70 is 900g)</p>

<p>I have to wonder why the nikon is heavier than the two stabilized zooms? maybe its all that extra 2003 mojo they put into it. j/k. well, sorta. anyone that wants to spend $1200+ on a new copy of this relic can be my guest. if you're buying used, the original tamron is as low as $250, making it a super deal, especially when you consider that its a screw-drive lens, so no chance of the AF-S motor breaking down -- which would possibly be a concern with obtaining a used 17-55 out of warranty. im sure there are lots of testimonials from users about a lens which has been in production for 12 years, but big honking DX zooms aren't exactly today's trends. the lens was long ago due for a stabilized, more compact update -- but tamron and sigma made those, not nikon. so, in terms of price-performance ratio, the 17-55 is the least cost-efficient of any of those choices. to get your money's worth out of it, you'd have to bang it around a bit and/or put it to double duty as a small truncheon. but hey, this is the nikon forum, so there will be people with more brand loyalty than is reciprocated through consumer appreciation. you cant really go wrong with any of the above lenses if you need a fast DX zoom, but you can definitely overspend.</p>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>So DX doesn't have a lot of lenses to choose from.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>So DX doesn't have a lot of lenses to choose from.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>if we're talking 2.8 standard zooms, it's about the same for FX, actually. Sigma and Tamron also make 24-70s. every 5 years Tokina will make a 2.8 too.</p>

[evilsivan]

For a 24-70 f2.8 equivalent the 17-55 f2.8 is the way to go (talking both Nikons here). They are the best, even though they are a little aged.

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>I did overspend on the Nikon 17-55/2.8 (even though I did not purchase new) and realized after a few years that the lens doesn't suit me very well. Not wide enough, not long enough, no VR, and bulky and heavy to boot. Had no complaints about the image quality - but in the end realized that a 16-85 was a much better match for me; I learned that I don't need a fast mid-range zoom. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Thanks for the summary, Eric - and yes, my post was intended to be a question (with a reference to the DxO report as a way of promoting discussion), not any kind of personal recommendation.<br />

<br />

Like Dieter, I've never really felt the need for a fast mid-range zoom. On a D700, a 28-200 was plenty for me in that range; I now avoid that because of its optical limitations on a D8x0 (compared with what the sensor can resolve), but I'm still not sold on the 24-70. I find I either want to go wide (14-24), go long (70-200), take portraits with better background isolation than a 24-70 would give me (85mm prime or longer) or make do in very low light, occasionally with a lot of subject isolation (35mm/50mm f/1.4 Sigma). I also recently picked up a 50mm f/1.8 series E, because it's the tiniest thing short of the overpriced 45mm f/2.8 pancake if I really want a small lens (and I have an f/1.8 AF-S 50mm if I want to split the difference). The 24-70 solves none of this for me. But I <i>did</i> hire one when I was shooting a wedding, because that's exactly the kind of circumstances where decent optics, a moderate amount of speed and a flexible zoom range on one camera were appropriate. It's just not normally how I shoot. YMMV!</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>A wide-to-tele zoom is more difficult to design because the optimal optical structure of wide angles and teles are very different, yet this lens must turn from one to the other merely by moving elements into different positions. It cannot be expected to be as good optically as a pure wide angle or a pure telezoom, this is a given. However, these lenses are still made because they're immensely useful to many people. I owned the 14-24/2.8 for many years but used it for maybe 1% of the number of shots that I've done with the Nikon 24-70. Yet the 24-70 (or the 17-55 for DX) doesn't cost 100 times as much as the 14-24, so for me the mid range zoom is both more useful and better value.</p>

 

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>IMO there are several reasons to buy a fast mid-range zoom - either 24-70/2.8 on FX or 16/17/18-50/55 on DX. The obvious one is the need for the speed and flexibility - and the focal length range is what it is then (can't imagine anyone would be unhappy with a DX 16-70/2.8 or an FX 24-85/2.8 provided optical quality can be maintained throughout that range (agree with Ilkka here - hard or even impossible)).<br>

<br /> The "unfortunate" need to purchase a 24-70/2.8 comes from the lack (perceived or real) of suitable alternatives - a 24-85 or 24-120 isn't (considered) sharp enough, too slow, or not built "like a tank". Canon has gone the (IMO) sensible route of offering a 24-70/4 as an alternative to the much bigger, heavier, and more expensive 24-70/2.8 - and I can only hope that the f/4 version is optically as good. Along with offering such a choice comes the willingness to "lose" sales of the f/2.8 variant - and hopefully making up for that loss by selling a sufficient number of the slower version instead. Nikon doesn't offer such a choice - so to get the best in optical quality, one has to cope with the other issues associated with choosing the 24-70/2.8.</p>

<p>I am currently trying out the route of slow mid-range zoom (less pricey, more range and less weight/bulk than the 24-70) and a set of fast (f/1.4 and f/1.8) primes for low-light and subject isolation prowess) - will have to see how that turns out. I also have the option to drop the mid-range zoom altogether - the gap between the 16-35/4 and the 70-200/4 might just be something I can live with most of the time.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Ilkka: I think that demonstrates horses-for-courses. Most of my shots are made with my 14-24, my 70-200 or my 200 f/2, with my 150mm macro probably following closely - and the 70-200 is my "I'm unsure about the focal length" lens. Given that I've managed to end up with four 50mm primes, two 35mm primes and two 85mm primes (just counting F-mount), it's a bit embarrassing that I use them so little - and don't get me started on how much use my 500 f/4 doesn't get. I do own a couple of mid-range zooms, but almost never use them. If I had more money to burn I'd probably give a 24-120 a go, because a little more reach would make a 24-70 more appealing to me, but the f/4 version isn't really disposable money (and I've actually read the reviews of the previous version, unlike the camera store guy who tried to sell me one). I'd like to claim this is why I have a mk1 RX100 rather than a mk3, but actually it's more to do with the relative price.<br />

<br />

Anyway. 24-70. Too restricted and heavy to be a "street-sweeper". Too slow to be a portrait lens or good in low light. Pick your compromises, and scale by the cost of the lens. We're all different, and I believe a lot of people would reach a different conclusion about a common lens to use than I did. And many of them know what they're doing much more than I do. :-)</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>My experience with both the 24-85mm/f3.5-4.5 AF-S VR and 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR are very positive. I have own the 24-120 almost since as soon as it was available back in 2010, and I got to test two copies of the 24-85. They maybe a bit weak on the 24mm end, but overall, I am very happy with them on the D800E and D810.</p>

<p>These are hand held, event photography lenses or so called "walk around" lenses. In those occasions, slow shutter speed indoors and subject motion are by far the bigger issues. If you lock your camera down on some tripod to shoot landscape or some studio still subjects at f5.6, f8, look into fixed 24mm, 35mm, 85mm, 105mm lenses.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The 24-120/4 is reasonably affordable if you buy it in a kit or if the dealer is willing to split a kit and sell just the lens to you. But if you don't need a wide-to-tele zoom, you don't need it; what lenses are available shouldn't really change that.</p>

<p><em>Too slow to be a portrait lens</em></p>

<p>For portraits of people in available light together with flash, I usually use an aperture of f/3.5-f/5.6. In the studio, I use f/5.6-f/6.3 for whole body shots and f/11 for head and shoulders. I use fast lenses wide open in available light event/documentary/street photography but rarely portraits. I'm surprised that you find a wider aperture than f/2.8 is required in portraiture. Google Annie Leibovitz, Joe McNally etc. A lot of their portraits have nearly all-encompassing depth of field. Some portrait photographers do use shallow depth of field regularly but it is not in any way the only way to do it. Of course this is a matter of personal style. You have to do what you have to do, and no one else should stop you from doing your thing. :-)</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Haha, Andrew - you have mid-range zooms you almost never use and you want a third! I think you need to be checked for GAS :)</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Shun: Thank you. I'll keep the 24-120 f/4 on my lust list.<br />

<br />

Ilkka: It's not that I don't want a wide-to-tele zoom (my 28-200 was my most-used lens on my D700), it's that a 24-70 barely solves my wide requirements, certainly doesn't solve my tele requirements, and misses out on the greatest feature of the 28-200: it's so small and light that I can leave it on a camera as a body cap until I think about what lens I actually should have been bringing with me. I don't mind having a "street sweeper", it's a mid-range zoom with a limited range that doesn't grab me! (I will, and have, pay 28-80 money for one, just not 24-70 money). Thank you for the financing tip.<br />

<br />

I should qualify my portraiture statement, since it vaguely applies to Ross's original question: f/2.8 is plenty fast enough for a lot of portraiture and, as Ilkka says, shooting wide open tends to result in fuzzy bits of anatomy. However, I don't consider a "fast prime for portraits" to need its bokeh abilities for the subject - it's a matter of being able to control the background. In a studio, I'd happily use a 24-70, though it's a little shorter than I'd typically shoot people, because I hope I'd have some control over what was behind the subject. For the candids I shoot, the background is rarely pretty, and my concern is often to make it go away as much as possible. (I should move somewhere more photogenic.) An f/2.8 24-70 just can't do that like a 50mm f/1.4 or a 200 f/2. I'd also probably have enough light in a studio!<br />

<br />

Chip: I failed a GAS check many years ago (don't ask how much my tilt-shifts get used, and I'm not kidding about the 500mm - which I intend to sell <i>when</i> I can eventually afford a 400 f/2.8). My only consolation is that there are people here who have it far worse than me.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>the 24-120 DX alternative is the 16-85, which really should have been a constant f/4. has nikon even made a non 18-xx DX standard zoom since releasing that? at the very least, they could update it and make it an f/4.</p>

<p>FWIW, i rarely use the 24-70 for portraits. i prefer a 35 and 85 combo, for environmental portraits and headshots. keeps things simple, so i can focus on composition. for events, its the opposite: i need a zoom because i need to quickly frame shots without thinking too much about composition.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>+1 Eric A.</p>

<p>I hugely enjoy using my Sigma 18-35mm 1.8, it really is a bunch of fast primes in one....but I am also aware of how the x2 only zoom range can affect, maybe even limit, compositional freedom.</p>

<p>The newer Nikon polycarbonate primes are feather weight compared to the 'pro' zooms of the past era. A weight versus convenience question arises and that is very much down to the intended use of the camera regards framing moving subjects or limited access where you cannot zoom with your feet.</p>