17-55dx or 28-70 2.8?

I was checking some of the past threads and found that both of these are quite popular. I find that some people say that the 17-55dx is the best normal zoom (with the 1.5 crop), and some say that it is the 28-70 2.8. For those of you who made this choice, which one did you choose and why? To those who would like to make this choice, which one would you choose and why?
--
What happens when you un-thaw ice?

As with all choices, it depends quite a bit on what one seeks. The 28-70 may be a great range on film, but at 1.5x on digital, it may not give the wide angle some need or want (like me).

Both are probably great lenses. I'm sure I'd love the 17-55 myself, but it's too expensive.

Lee

I just trade my 28-70 to 17-55. I do wedding for a living and the weight is important to a whole day's work. The range is my second reason and I can go without the wide angle for some group shots.

Willie

pianopix said:

As with all choices, it depends quite a bit on what one seeks. The
28-70 may be a great range on film, but at 1.5x on digital, it may
not give the wide angle some need or want (like me).

Both are probably great lenses. I'm sure I'd love the 17-55 myself,
but it's too expensive.

Lee

Click to expand...

I've been through quite a number of lenses, on my film camera (without the 1.5 crop) I found the 28-105 the best focal length lens I ever had, and used it at least 95% of the time.

When I bought the D70 I took this into account, that I'd want something as wide as the 28mm on film, possibly even wider, so went for the 17-55. However, when I bought the D70 the 17-55 was new and not available, so I used my 28-105 for a short period, it was not much fun, far too wide at a 42mm equivilent to be used as a general purpose primary lens. I would thus strongly recommend the 17-55 which I think is a great lens - I posted a review on it's sharpness recently.

You may also want to consider what other lenses you're going to want/get as that may change your decision. If you have, or are going to get a 12-24mm then the 17-55 may not be the best option due to the large amount of overlap. But then again, maybe not, I have the 17-55, and I'm likely to get the Sigma 10-20 if it's good. This would leave a large gap between 20-28mm if I had a zoom starting at 28mm.

Roland.

bappelt said:

I was checking some of the past threads and found that both of
these are quite popular. I find that some people say that the
17-55dx is the best normal zoom (with the 1.5 crop), and some say
that it is the 28-70 2.8. For those of you who made this choice,
which one did you choose and why? To those who would like to make
this choice, which one would you choose and why?
--
What happens when you un-thaw ice?

Click to expand...

In looking at some of my pictures with the 18-70, I find that I shoot more at 70mm than at 18mm. I think I'd really miss the 70mm with the 17-55. That is my main concern about that lens. Of course, with the 28-70 there's the weight factor, and having the wide end of only 42mm seems like that may get rather annoying. As for optical quality, is there much of a difference between these two lenses?

Bryan

Roland Wooster said:

When I bought the D70 I took this into account, that I'd want
something as wide as the 28mm on film, possibly even wider, so went
for the 17-55. However, when I bought the D70 the 17-55 was new and
not available, so I used my 28-105 for a short period, it was not
much fun, far too wide at a 42mm equivilent to be used as a general
purpose primary lens. I would thus strongly recommend the 17-55
which I think is a great lens - I posted a review on it's sharpness
recently.

You may also want to consider what other lenses you're going to
want/get as that may change your decision. If you have, or are
going to get a 12-24mm then the 17-55 may not be the best option
due to the large amount of overlap. But then again, maybe not, I
have the 17-55, and I'm likely to get the Sigma 10-20 if it's good.
This would leave a large gap between 20-28mm if I had a zoom
starting at 28mm.

Roland.

bappelt said:

I was checking some of the past threads and found that both of
these are quite popular. I find that some people say that the
17-55dx is the best normal zoom (with the 1.5 crop), and some say
that it is the 28-70 2.8. For those of you who made this choice,
which one did you choose and why? To those who would like to make
this choice, which one would you choose and why?
--
What happens when you un-thaw ice?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
What happens when you un-thaw ice?

I was in the same situation after selling my D70 with the kit-lens. I first thought about buying the Nikon 12-24dx since I have the two primes 35mm f/2 and 50mm f/1.8. But it means changing the lens all the time and f/4 for the 12-24dx is quite limiting for me. I wanted a mid-range zoom again, mainly as a walk-around lens. Since I like more the wide-end, I decided for the 17-55dx. It's heavy but a very sharp lens. For the tele-end I have the 85 f/1.8.

bappelt said:

I was checking some of the past threads and found that both of
these are quite popular. I find that some people say that the
17-55dx is the best normal zoom (with the 1.5 crop), and some say
that it is the 28-70 2.8. For those of you who made this choice,
which one did you choose and why? To those who would like to make
this choice, which one would you choose and why?
--
What happens when you un-thaw ice?

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/gsamj

quickly replacing "what's the meaning of life" as the ultimate question. It's not an easy decision and prone to some heavy second guessing. I picked the 17-55 and am very happy with my choice. I'm sure I had a reason.

Phil

I think the decision for me was made by evaluating my preferences in shooting, as these mid-range zooms tend to be the ones that are most often on the camera. I like to get closer to my subjects, in general, and consequently shoot less at the wider end of the zoom range. I got the Nikkor 12-24mm for those times when I'm in a WA mood, the Nikkor 70-200mm and 200-400mm nicely cover the longer tele end and the 28-70mm was a natural "fit" between the WA zoom an the 70-200mm. It is a solid piece of optical equipment that is sharp and serves as my favorite "walking around lens", with just enough tele that I don't need to reach for the 70-200mm all that often.

Between which two? the 28-70 and 17-55 are both Pro lenses, the 18-70 isn't, and much as I was annoyed by the lens snobs who said "you can't even compare them" when I asked similar questions a year ago, there is something to be said for that. I don't have either the 28-70, or the 18-70 so can't make any real comparisons, only ones about expectations based on what I've read.

The pro lenses are sharper, have wider apertures, and better contrast, color, and bokeh. There's a lot going for the pro lenses, then again there's the cost and weight.

Roland.

bappelt said:

Bryan

Roland Wooster said:

When I bought the D70 I took this into account, that I'd want
something as wide as the 28mm on film, possibly even wider, so went
for the 17-55. However, when I bought the D70 the 17-55 was new and
not available, so I used my 28-105 for a short period, it was not
much fun, far too wide at a 42mm equivilent to be used as a general
purpose primary lens. I would thus strongly recommend the 17-55
which I think is a great lens - I posted a review on it's sharpness
recently.

You may also want to consider what other lenses you're going to
want/get as that may change your decision. If you have, or are
going to get a 12-24mm then the 17-55 may not be the best option
due to the large amount of overlap. But then again, maybe not, I
have the 17-55, and I'm likely to get the Sigma 10-20 if it's good.
This would leave a large gap between 20-28mm if I had a zoom
starting at 28mm.

Roland.

bappelt said:

I was checking some of the past threads and found that both of
these are quite popular. I find that some people say that the
17-55dx is the best normal zoom (with the 1.5 crop), and some say
that it is the 28-70 2.8. For those of you who made this choice,
which one did you choose and why? To those who would like to make
this choice, which one would you choose and why?
--
What happens when you un-thaw ice?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
What happens when you un-thaw ice?

Click to expand...

bappelt said:

I was checking some of the past threads and found that both of
these are quite popular.

Click to expand...

That's because both are outstanding lenses.

bappelt said:

I find that some people say that the 17-55dx is the best normal zoom (with the 1.5 crop), and some say that it is the 28-70 2.8. For those of you who made this choice, which one did you choose and why? To those who would like to make this choice, which one would you choose and why?

Click to expand...

I'll add my comments to the list, but it won't help you reach a decision. It's a matter of subject preference and style, which means it's personal decision for each photographer. You've owned your d70 for almost a year, so I'd suggest you go through your archives and see what your use pattern is. And if you haven't developed one yet, it may be too early for you to commit $1300 for a pro lens.

I currently use a Tamron 28-75 on my d70, and the zoom range suits me to a T. When I have enough money for a pro lens, it'll be the Nikon 28-70.

--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank
FCAS Charter Member, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Gallery at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank/nikon

It's funny because when I was making my decision it was between 17-55 and 17-35. not 28-70. I was thinking I would gain on the long end by going with 17-55. Now with 28-70 you have to choose on the wide end. With D70 it is on the wide end that I find lacking because of 1.5 crop factor - and I have 20-35 f2.8. I don't know what lenses you have - if your line-up favors the long end, then I would go with 17-55. If not, go with 28-70. Either way, you end up with a winner.

Best regards,

John

I currently have the 18-70, and yes I know that it isn't a pro lens. I'm not comparing it to the 17-55dx or the 28-70, I'm comparing the two pro-lenses to each other. Seeing as you have neither, and seem to have done some research, which one would you choose and why? What is your shooting style?

Bryan

Roland Wooster said:

The pro lenses are sharper, have wider apertures, and better
contrast, color, and bokeh. There's a lot going for the pro lenses,
then again there's the cost and weight.

Roland.

bappelt said:

Bryan

Roland Wooster said:

When I bought the D70 I took this into account, that I'd want
something as wide as the 28mm on film, possibly even wider, so went
for the 17-55. However, when I bought the D70 the 17-55 was new and
not available, so I used my 28-105 for a short period, it was not
much fun, far too wide at a 42mm equivilent to be used as a general
purpose primary lens. I would thus strongly recommend the 17-55
which I think is a great lens - I posted a review on it's sharpness
recently.

You may also want to consider what other lenses you're going to
want/get as that may change your decision. If you have, or are
going to get a 12-24mm then the 17-55 may not be the best option
due to the large amount of overlap. But then again, maybe not, I
have the 17-55, and I'm likely to get the Sigma 10-20 if it's good.
This would leave a large gap between 20-28mm if I had a zoom
starting at 28mm.

Roland.

bappelt said:

I was checking some of the past threads and found that both of
these are quite popular. I find that some people say that the
17-55dx is the best normal zoom (with the 1.5 crop), and some say
that it is the 28-70 2.8. For those of you who made this choice,
which one did you choose and why? To those who would like to make
this choice, which one would you choose and why?
--
What happens when you un-thaw ice?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
What happens when you un-thaw ice?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
What happens when you un-thaw ice?

I have looked at my general shooting pattern over the past year, and I find that my favorite shots are portrait shots. I find that I use 70mm more often than 18mm on my 18-70, plus I tend to like my 70mm shots better (maybe that means I have to practice more wide shots?). My first instinct would be to go with the 28-70 and keep the 18-70 for the time being. Of course, I've been shooting with a prett light lens up until now. Is the 2.6 pounds of the 28-70 really end up feeling like that much more than the 1.5 pounds of the 17-55? I guess I'm just indecisive. It doesn't help that I live on an island without a real camera store so I can't try them out. Yes paradise is tough

Bryan

Uncle Frank said:

Uncle Frank said:

I was checking some of the past threads and found that both of
these are quite popular.

Click to expand...

That's because both are outstanding lenses.

Uncle Frank said:

I find that some people say that the 17-55dx is the best normal zoom (with the 1.5 crop), and some say that it is the 28-70 2.8. For those of you who made this choice, which one did you choose and why? To those who would like to make this choice, which one would you choose and why?

Click to expand...

I'll add my comments to the list, but it won't help you reach a
decision. It's a matter of subject preference and style, which
means it's personal decision for each photographer. You've owned
your d70 for almost a year, so I'd suggest you go through your
archives and see what your use pattern is. And if you haven't
developed one yet, it may be too early for you to commit $1300 for
a pro lens.

I currently use a Tamron 28-75 on my d70, and the zoom range suits
me to a T. When I have enough money for a pro lens, it'll be the
Nikon 28-70.

--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank
FCAS Charter Member, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Gallery at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank/nikon

Click to expand...

--
What happens when you un-thaw ice?

Both are hefty, pro-build lenses, but the weight difference is, I believe, less than a half lb. According to B&H specs, the 28-70mm weights 2.06 lbs and the 17-55mm 1.66 lbs. That being said, the difference in weight relative to the kit lens is noticeable and after a day of carrying around either on your camera, you will notice that difference. (I keep the kit lens and 70-300mm D lenses for those long treks in the mountains.)

I'm currently using a D70 body, which is quite light, so the combo of that and the 28-70mm lens is not too heavy for a day of shooting, in general. If (when) I eventually obtain a pro-grade body, the added weight will probably be more onerous.

I wouldn't make the choice on weight alone, but rather on your preferences for zoom range (personal shooting style), and what other lenses you have, or will ultimately acquire. I'm not big on "overlapping" zoom ranges, as it seems like extra weight in my, already heavy, camera bag.

If you're like many of us on this forum, or if you spend much time here, the lust for more and faster glass is infectious and as you become more involved in photography your collection will grow to meet your needs (lust.)

I have a D70 with kit lens and its great. After shooting
with it for almost a year now (wedding photography)
I found that this lens, though being nice and all, was
not that sharp and did not rendered all that good colors
straight out from the camera. I recently aquired the
28-70 AFS and I should say I was immediatelly
impresed. It's just HUGE!!! The scalloped hood makes
this lens look like a telephoto zoom (almost as big as
the 80-200 f/2.8). The thing is that I had the opportunity
to try out this lens before buying it and I knew how big
it was, but still, when it arrived after ordering it to B&H,
it impressed me as if it was the first time seeing it.

Optically, simply a beast. Superb from f/4 on to f/13.
At f/2.8, a bit "smooth", still better than all other zooms
in this range (it's expected - it's a pro lens). Zooming
fuctions are simply in a league of it's own. Smooth
clutches, firm mechanism, tight construction, iron solid,
the sweetest / fastest auto focus on a WA / TELE zoom,
silent as a baby's respiration, simply NIKON.

For me, for my slyle, for wedding PJ, works wonders.
Combined with my 50 f/1.4 and my 85 f/1.8 (my most
used lenses) it's almost an indestructible combo (still
missing the 17-35 AFS and 70-200 VR).

Anyway, if your shooting style can beneficiate itself
with this gem of a lens, dont hesitate.

--
God Bless Photography!!!

I use the 24 - 85 AFS lens for everyday photos.

When I know I am shooting table shots or groups, I switch to the 17mm-55mm lens. The 24-85 mm lens is just a little to narrow for table shots and large groups. It works but the 17mm makes your life a lot easier.

I also have the 70 - 200 VR lens which I use for sporting events.

JARYphoto said:

--
God Bless Photography!!!

Click to expand...

--
Dennis
http://www.nyfirephotos.com
http://www.terryvillefd.org

...where is it that you live??? I recall you mentioning
that " it didn't help to live in an island without any real
photo store" (or something like that). That same thing
happens to me. I live in Puerto Rico and we don't
have any REAL photo store; one that has high end
professional equipment in stock. Anyway, if you
live in PR, I caould show you my copy of the 28-70 AFS.
That could really help you make your mind.

--
God Bless Photography!!!

Roland Wooster said:

You may also want to consider what other lenses you're going to
want/get as that may change your decision. If you have, or are
going to get a 12-24mm then the 17-55 may not be the best option
due to the large amount of overlap.

Roland.

Click to expand...

I agree. I had the 17-55 and it is a great lens, no argument from me on that. But I have the 12-24, and there is a large overlap. I also kept finding I wanted a little more than the 55 top end.

Solution? I sold the 17-55 and replaced it with the humble(?) 24-85 AFS. Not a pro lens, they tell me, but a cracker just the same. I have never regretted the switch. And I netted a few pounds to spend on something else.

Of course, it depends what is important to you. Do you really need constant f2.8? Do you take a lot of architecture? (there is a bit of distortion at the extremes). Otherwise well worth considering. You may want to read what Ken Rockwell says...
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/2485afs.htm

--
Phil Dentten
PBASE Supporter
NAPP Member
NOCI Member
http://www.pbase.com/phil_d

'No-one ever built a monument to a critic.' Jean Sibelius (1865-1957).

I believe it’s more difficult for a lens to achieve good quality on the wide side than on the tele end, and in that department the 17-55 rules. On the other hand 55mm is barely long enough for an all purpose lens, but like many say it’s easier to walk a step forward than make a hole in the wall .

Anyway I decided to put the big chunk of money on the 17-55 but also keep the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8.
Good luck with your decision
Pablo

bappelt said:

I was checking some of the past threads and found that both of
these are quite popular. I find that some people say that the
17-55dx is the best normal zoom (with the 1.5 crop), and some say
that it is the 28-70 2.8. For those of you who made this choice,
which one did you choose and why? To those who would like to make
this choice, which one would you choose and why?
--
What happens when you un-thaw ice?

Click to expand...

--

If you stay calm when the others lose their head it means you’re not
understanding the problem

Do you have some examples with the 24-85, Phil? I'm particularly interested in the character of the bokeh. And do you find it gives sharp results at wide aperture, or do you have to stop it down like most consumer grade lenses?

--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank
FCAS Charter Member, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Gallery at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank/nikon