nikon 17-55 f2.8 vs. 24-70 f2.8

p1tse

p1tse

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,391
Edit My Images
No
apart from focal range do these perform the same?
 
I've used the 17-55 and it's a wonderful lens on DX, but I would expect the 24-70 to perform even better, as it's a top of the line lens, and is much newer. Nikon's alphabet soup comes to mind. Nano Crystal Coating, and all of that gibberish is on the 24-70, and not on the 17-55. Though, if you shoot DX, just get the 17-55. It's sharp, sharp, sharp, and performs great. The 24-70 did seem to focus faster, in my case. Though I was using a very beaten up 17-55 and a brand new 24-70, so I can't really be sure if this is true.
 
Last edited:
I owned a 17-55 2.8, and frequently hired the 24-70 2.8 from lensesforhire. There is very little to tell the two apart in my opinion, with the obvious exception of focal length. Make your choice based on your preference for focal length and you'll be a happy boy either way :)

They're both full on pro lenses
 
Both are fantastic lenses, but the 17-55 is a DX lens, so will only work on crop bodies, without losing the corners or changing the body setting to DX crop mode and accepting the smaller images.

The 24-70 works on all the bodies - my most used lens by far. (but then the 17-55 was also my most used lens on my D300).
 
I bought the older version, the 28-70 f2.8 for my D7000, wonderful optic etc but reason i buy that istead of the 17-55 because i planning to move FF in the future so it will safe me some $$$ on lens.
 
Sorry to hijack the thread but do you guys think a VR2 of the 24-70 will be released anytime soon?
 
i don't think they will add VR on the 24-70 in anytime to behonest. To behonest i think the lens is good enough already ....... i never relaly think i need VR on the focal length like the 24-70 .....
 
The 24-70, I don't think so. The 17-55 could get VR though to match the competition, as Canon's 17-55 f/2.8 does have IS.
 
i know IS/VR is very good etc, but for those focal range do you think we actually need it? Consider the 24-70 cost around £1200 new and the 17-55 cost around 900-1000 new so added VR on the lens you talking about 100-200 pound more.

For me i would stay with non VR/IS.

I understand why you need VR/IS on a 70-200 but even that i still capable of shooting without VR/IS on big zoom like 70-200.
 
I had the 17-55 on my old D90, but went for the Tamron 28-75 as that length suited me better. IQ wise I didn't find much in it, and I feel that my 24-70 now is much better, although I am now on a D300, shoot manual rather than A, and my technique and skills have improved.
 
Like Mahoney says, there's so little in it, the only real difference is the focal length. On DX the 17-55 reigns supreme; on FX the 24-70 is the only current choice.
 
Thanks for responding to my question too guys, much appreciated :)
 
Most of my shots are of babies and toddlers

Even on a cropped sensor 24mm would be fine indoors

But outdoor in the garden not getting too close disturbing natural play the 70mm would be nice. However 24 70 don't come up used often

Reading a few threads I've seen some have picked up the 17 55 for £500. If I sell my primes save a bit it could be an option :)

If I had the money I would go 24 70 as focal range is better suited plus reading it sounds it's newer and better with the likes of nano coating of flare reduction etc.
 
You have the same needs as me, shoot the same and prefer the longer length - Wait until a 24-70 comes up. About £900 SH. Worth every penny. Once you get to f4 or f5.6, as sharp as my 50mm. The 50mm is better at 2.8 than the zoom, but you would expect that, and that is only when you peep anyway.
 
Cambsno
Been looking at some of your pics very nice. It's all about kids and family really
The only way I can afford that is sell my entire kit which means I'm left with no body lol
Shall see what 2012 brings, fortune I hope :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top