24-120 VR vs. 17-55 DX - images

I rented a 17-55 DX for the weekend, since I hear so much about it. I thought it would be interesting to do some comparisons with my 24-120 VR.

Files are shot raw, and then post-processed to the best my abilities in Photoshop CS. For the 24-120 VR, that also includes running it through DxO Optics Pro. Adobe Camera Raw settings were identical, except I used sharpening 25% for the 17-55, and 15% for the 24-120, because the DxO de-blur is sort of a pre-sharpening, and at 25% the image looked a little more sharpened than the 17-55 did.

First, images from the two lenses where the 24-120 VR is at its worst -- wide angle, wide aperture (24mm at F3.5). I will say which is which at the bottom. Order is determined by a coin toss.

These are 100% crops. The focus point, and center of the image in all the images is the upper right corner of the Cheerios box.





The first image was 17-55, the second the 24-120.

Now, the two lenses at 50mm, F10. Again, order determined by coin toss.





24-120 won the coin toss this time, and was the first image.

I personally only see a very very slight superiority to the 17-55 images. I think that with proper post-processing, the 24-120 VR in no way deserves its bad reputation. At the same focal lengths and apertures, the difference in image quality is so close as to be negligible (at least to me).

That being said, shooting with the 17-55 all weekend was awesome. There is a lot to be said for the constant 2.8 aperture, and the wider angle definitely can be handy. On the other hand, the extra zoom, the VR, the much lower size/weight/price of the 24-120 are also great.

Thoughts/comments?

-- Matt
Gallery - http://www.imageevent.com/pmattf

Thanks, Matt. I like your comparison, it worths more than hundred of discussions. I think the lens plays an important role in getting good pictures, but the photographer is also important. I am curious to see how the two compared in the JPG department, without retouching. That's what I do most of the time. BTW, I'm just a family guy who like to take pictures of my wife and two daughters. I usually don't have time to play around with raw and adjustment. Thanks again.
Hai

The 17-55DX is an awesome lens for sure, but there is so much talk around here about this expensive lens that makes it sound like its night and day although that's not the case!
--
Anastassios
Nikon D70

Hai Vu said:

Thanks, Matt. I like your comparison, it worths more than hundred
of discussions. I think the lens plays an important role in getting
good pictures, but the photographer is also important. I am curious
to see how the two compared in the JPG department, without
retouching.

Click to expand...

Following are the same four images, still shot RAW, but this time with the default Nikon conversion (just using Nikon View save as jpeg), bypassing the DxO step for the 24-120. As you can see, without DxO the 24-120 really is not a very sharp lens, particularly at the wider apertures.

Note that the camera (D70) was set at sharpness -1 and contrast -1, as that is how I like to shoot jpegs, for better post-processing. But also note that by simply shooting raw and doing a default conversion, you get a significant sharpness boost compared to shooting plain jpeg.

Anyway, here they are, in the same order as the original post...
17-55 at 24mm, f3.5



24-120 at 24mm, f3.5



24-120 at 50mm, f10



17-55 at 50mm, f10



-- Matt
Gallery - http://www.imageevent.com/pmattf

Thanks for providing these samples for people, Matt.

I think the most striking thing about these images is the difference in contrast between the two images. The difference is even more apparent in these shots with identical processing.

The DX lens really excels in this regard, as your examples show.

Thanks again,

Todd

Todd that is what I noticed from the jpegs crops of your battle Royale Todd, the 17-55 just jumps off the page with contrast!

Matt: so where does this leave you on your assessment? That second round of pics is illuminating, it says to me that the 24-120 isn't even close to the 17-55 (as expected), and rather shows the benefit of software post processing on an image from an inferior lens to bring it closer to a superior one.

twig69 said:

Matt: so where does this leave you on your assessment? That second
round of pics is illuminating, it says to me that the 24-120 isn't
even close to the 17-55 (as expected), and rather shows the benefit
of software post processing on an image from an inferior lens to
bring it closer to a superior one.

Click to expand...

I don't really see that big a difference in contrast between the two. Certainly nothing that a little contrast boost in Adobe Camera Raw can't make up for. In terms of absolute image quality at the same aperture and focal length, I see the properly post-processed 24-120 VR images as just as good as the pro lens images.

So yes, you are exactly right. The 24-120 is clearly inferior hardware. But the software technology definitely exists to totally work around that problem (shooting raw, processing with DxO).

What the 17-55 does have going for it for me is the constant 2.8. I really like that 2.8 look, with more out of focus backgrounds, and the ability to shoot faster shutter speeds at lower light (though the VR makes up for that if your subject holds still).

SO , as far as my personal kit, I will definitely keep the 24-120 VR, and definitely use that as my main walkaround lens, especially for travel. But at some point I probably will get one of the pro 2.8 zooms. Most likely the 28-70, as I tend to like telephoto way more than wide angle. But I will probably wait until Nikon announces the new lenses that are supposed to come out this year before actually buying anything.

In the meantime I can rent a 2.8 pro zoom for $25 for the weekend when I have an important shoot.

-- Matt
Gallery - http://www.imageevent.com/pmattf

I see a big difference in favor of the 17-55 dx, mostly at 24mm. I can read pretty ok the letters in the low left corner of the box in its picture, while not at all in the 24-120's one.

I do not use any of the lenses, although I would like both for different reasons and situations.

Best,
Dioni
Things should be as simple as possible, but not simpler (Albert Einstein)

Dioni said:

I see a big difference in favor of the 17-55 dx, mostly at 24mm. I
can read pretty ok the letters in the low left corner of the box in
its picture, while not at all in the 24-120's one.

Click to expand...

Are you talking about the DxO processed images in my original post, or the default Nikon processed ones without DxO in my follow-up? If the latter, then yes, I definitely agree with you. But would (and have) argued that it doesn't matter, because you can process with DxO and bring the 24-120VR images up to snuff.

On the other hand, DxO does have a module for the 17-55 too. I would be curious to see what output from that looks like. It may well take those images yet another big step ahead.

-- Matt
Gallery - http://www.imageevent.com/pmattf

What is DxO, and where do you find it?, Is it a Program?

West Bloomfield MI said:

What is DxO, and where do you find it?, Is it a Program?

Click to expand...

It is very cool software, which has been around since last May or so, but only with its most recent revision this past January has really come in to its own..
http://www.dxo.com/en/corporate/home/default.php

There has been plenty of discussion of it in the forums here on dpreview, but unfortunately the search function will not allow you to search for words that are less than 3 letters, so the discussions are a bit hard to find. Try searching for "dxo optics" though, and you should find plenty.

-- Matt
Gallery - http://www.imageevent.com/pmattf

thanks for the reply. Hard to get sometimes if one is not in "the group".

Matt F said:

Dioni said:

I see a big difference in favor of the 17-55 dx, mostly at 24mm. I
can read pretty ok the letters in the low left corner of the box in
its picture, while not at all in the 24-120's one.

Click to expand...

Are you talking about the DxO processed images in my original post,
or the default Nikon processed ones without DxO in my follow-up? If
the latter, then yes, I definitely agree with you. But would (and
have) argued that it doesn't matter, because you can process with
DxO and bring the 24-120VR images up to snuff.

Click to expand...

Although the difference is way more noticeable in the second post, without DxO.

Best,
Dioni
Things should be as simple as possible, but not simpler (Albert Einstein)

I have the 24-120 mm VR, and have thought about selling it for the 17-55mm DX. I have since decided to keep my 24-120mm VR, and I carry only the 24-120mm VR, 50 mm f/1.8, and the 70-200mm AF-S VR F/2.8

I do not see enough of a difference in the images between the 17-55mm DX and the 24-120 mm VR to justify the price difference. I do not see any big advantage in contrast either.

I do not make a habit of peeking and counting pixels or blowing up images looking for insignificant differences either. I really appreciate you posting this despite the backlash you may receive because of it.

Thanks again, I really appreciate it.
--
If Photography is a crime, may God forgive me!

Hello,

The most effective way to find all earlier posts relating to DxO Optics Pro is to use the keyword "DxO" (within quotes, and without "Optics") to Search.

regards,

Sunthar

suntharv said:

The most effective way to find all earlier posts relating to DxO
Optics Pro is to use the keyword "DxO" (within quotes, and without
"Optics") to Search.

Click to expand...

Great tip -- I did not realize that putting a three letter word in quotes would bypass dpreview's refusal to search for words that small. I guess the quotes count as letters?

-- Matt
Gallery - http://www.imageevent.com/pmattf