Nikon 17-55 vs 24-70

S

Snake Man

Suspended / Banned
Messages
820
Name
Andy
Edit My Images
Yes
Sorry, another lens thread from me but I can't afford to make the wrong choice.

I want the lens to be my walk about lens and as a portrait lens.

Cost is an issue, the 24-70 is quite a bit more, so it really does need to be worth the difference.

I'm currently using a cropped sensor camera but I'm also thinking future proofing. The earliest you're talking, is me getting a D3 when the D4 is released.

Help much appreciated.
 
Well, it's tough to say really. I personally went for the 17-55, because A) I had the money for it, and B) the 24-70 wasn't released at the time iirc.

24mm is wide enough for a general walk about lens, but bare in mind it will essentially be cropped due to the smaller sensor so it will actually look more like a 36mm. However, for portrait work, the 70mm (105mm) will be usefull.

Considering the future proofing... The D4 will not be out for a rather long time I would have though, so if you are on a cropped sensor at the moment, I personally would go for the 17-55. It's a fantastic lens. Have you though about the Sigma 24-70? A very good lens I hear and for considerably less money! Perhaps also the Nikkor 28-70? A full frame lens, at roughly the same price as the 17-55. Ok, it is perhaps not as wide as you might like, but will work well for portraiture.

Food for thought atleast :)
 
I managed to pick me up a second hand Nikkor 28-70 2.8 last week to partner my new D3. Got it for £550. It is very very good. Is tack sharp at 2.8 which is what I was bothered about. I was deliberating over a Sigma, tamron or Tokina but decided I had to go Nikon in the end as this will be my most used lens probably.

Having said that my Sigma 70-200 2.8 is also fantastic on this D3, would love to see what the Nikkor equivalent with VR was like though.

28mm on a cropped sensor is a bit restrictive though I think. Won't be great for landscape shots if you want it as a walkabout lens. Also, it's bloody big and heavy as well, but I kind of like that.
 
You have the Sigma 10-20 (according to your profile anyway), so I would definately go for the 24-70mm f2.8. Lenses are investments and if you are thinking (like me) that FF will be a realistic option in a 2-4 years then I would definately ensure that all my big purchase lenses now are FF compatible. If you don't you'll find that the FF upgrade is mighty costly if you have to get a 24-70 at that point as well.

Just my 2p
 
Thanks for the replies. It is a tough one. I did have a play with 17-55 today and was most impressed, the build quality is something else. Unfortunately the shop didn't have a 24-70 in stock to look.

I think I'm just going to have to try both and make my decision that way.
 
The 24-70 is a great lens. But if you don't ever intend to go FF then I'd say get the 17-55 due to the crop factor. Then again if you have a 10-20, the 24-70 might be just the ticket.
 
I made my call to go with the 17-55 based on most used focal length. Download exposureplot from here: http://www.cpr.demon.nl/prog_plotf.html

Run it and see what you use most.

It showed me that I'd miss the 17-28 length more than I'd use the 55-70.

As I was using an 18-200 up until switching to "pro" glass, for me it was a good test.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top