Reading mode: Light Dark

Going from 17-55mm to 28-70mm ..

Go to last post
L

larry cothren

Well-known member
Messages
170
Reaction score
0
Location
US
Has anyone made the swap from one to the other. I currently have the 17-55mm and I am finding that I max out at 55mm or I max out at 70mm on my 70-200mm when shooting dance comptitions. However I do like the wide end when shooting indoors.

Has anyone been in a similar situation and what was your resolution?

Thanks,
Larry
--
Nikon D2x
2-SB-800DX
Nikkor 70-200vr, 84mm 1.4, 28mm1.4, 17-55mm DX
 
I sold my 17-55 and bought a 28-70. It just fit better for my style of photograhphy--portraits. I don't do a lot of wide angle stuff, and when I do, it is mostly outside--landscape/vacation type shooting.

The 28-70 is absolutely awesome--extremely sharp, and the fastest AF I've seen in a zoom lens. This may not work for everybody though. You have to build your lens arsenal based on what you like to shoot. A lot of people claim that they have one lens as their everyday lens. I don't believe that exist for me. I have specific lens for my specific needs, and don't want any compromises made for the sake of convenience. One of the reasons I will probably never own a 18-200--I don't have a need for it.

Just my opinion though...
Pat
 
That is pretty much what I shoot. The 28-70mm would probably sit on my camera 75% of the time. Depending on the venue I normally shoot the 70-200mm and if it's too dark I move to my 28mm or 85mm 1.4.

I'm thinking that I would get more use out of the "Beast" in tight venues and it would be wide enough for birthday parties and such.

Larry
Patrick Love said:
I sold my 17-55 and bought a 28-70. It just fit better for my
style of photograhphy--portraits. I don't do a lot of wide angle
stuff, and when I do, it is mostly outside--landscape/vacation type
shooting.

The 28-70 is absolutely awesome--extremely sharp, and the fastest
AF I've seen in a zoom lens. This may not work for everybody
though. You have to build your lens arsenal based on what you like
to shoot. A lot of people claim that they have one lens as their
everyday lens. I don't believe that exist for me. I have specific
lens for my specific needs, and don't want any compromises made for
the sake of convenience. One of the reasons I will probably never
own a 18-200--I don't have a need for it.

Just my opinion though...
Pat
Click to expand...
--
Nikon D2H
SB-800DX
Nikkor 70-200vr, 84mm 1.4, 50mm1.4, 17-55mm DX
 
What would be easier -- to crop a 55MM shot to a 70MM field of view or back up through a wall when 28 is not wide enough? :)

A 28-70 would probably be better suited for dance competitions. Well, until it came time for the group shots.

Phil
 
larry cothren said:
I'm thinking that I would get more use out of the "Beast" in tight
venues and it would be wide enough for birthday parties and such.
Click to expand...
Think so? Maybe -- maybe not. I recently shot a b'day party as a favor for a client. I ran that little stats program on the shots and 67% of them were wider than 28MM. It's a problem that just won't go away. :)

Phil
 
Larry,

I was able to do a swap of the two lenses without any cost. In
general, I prefer the 28-70 and find it much more useful. Like you,
I found that I seemed to be wishing for more length from the lens
fairly often. For dance competitions I think it will be a great choice.

There have been 3 instances where 28mm was not wide enough for
me in the past 6 months. In one case I could have moved a little to
get the shot, but figured it wasn't worth it. In another, 17 would not
have been wide enough either, becuase my 15 wasn't wide enough.

Ultimately, you might need to get something wider to have on hand,
"just in case". That's my plan anyway.

Jim
larry cothren said:
Has anyone made the swap from one to the other. I currently have
the 17-55mm and I am finding that I max out at 55mm or I max out at
70mm on my 70-200mm when shooting dance comptitions. However I do
like the wide end when shooting indoors.

Has anyone been in a similar situation and what was your resolution?

Thanks,
Larry
--
Nikon D2x
2-SB-800DX
Nikkor 70-200vr, 84mm 1.4, 28mm1.4, 17-55mm DX
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/jgreen
 
I completely agree with what Phil said & want to add my 2 cents:

You'd mentioned about shooting in low light. 17-55 will serve best at 2.8 & is ideal for low light whereas to get the best results out of 28-70, you'll need to shoot at around 5.6

Area of coverage bet_w 17 & 28 is a lot compared to 55 & 70. And, if you already have 70-200 VR, I guess you shouldn't miss it that much. But again, 28-70 is better suited for portrait.

I shoot wedding (getting into it) and I was in the same dilemna a few months back. I leaned towards 17-55 due to it's low light performance.

How about renting the 28-70 & do a comparison yourself? Believe me, it will be worth every penny & you'll thank yourself rest of your life that you did. Atleast, it'll be better than selling 28-70 & buying the 17-55 again!
;)

And don't forget to share your experience with us.
:)
--
Warm Regards,
HitsOfMisses
http://www.pbase.com/HitsOfMisses
 
I was wondering about the low light capability of this lens. On many of the opinions on the 28-70mm that I have been reading this morning have said the same as you about stopping down to 5.6 or so. I do a lot of low light photography. So much to the point that I have trouble when there is good light.

I may have to find local photographer that will let me try one out. There isn't a place to rent equipment around here.

I might just have to do the foot zoom. I just wanted to be sure that I was not missing out if there was something better..

thanks for all of the replies.
--
Nikon D2x
SB-800DX
Nikkor 70-200vr, 85mm 1.4, 28mm1.4, 17-55mm DX
 
Bought them both. Could not make a decision, so... Both very, very nice lenses.

28-70 is a little sharper, but has some more CA especially wide open. Good for prtraits weddings etc.

17-55 is a little wider. Great for allround fotography. You got some zoom, and you are pretty wide. This one is on my D2x most of the time. When needed I use the high speed crop mode for getting some more zoom when I do not have any other lenses with me.
 
While I agree the 17-55 is good at wider apertures, it also benefits from stopping down a bit also. IMO, having owned the lens, the 17-55 is not at its best wide open, although it may be better than other zooms at that aperture.

If you looked realllly hard, you might be able to tell the difference between the two at f2.8. It would be VERY difficult to tell the difference between the 17-55 and 28-70 at f3.2! Yes, by f5.6 both lens are superb!

IMO, a f2.8 lens is not really a lowlight lens. I would stick with primes for that work:

Nikon 28 f1.4, Nikon 35 f2, Sigma 30 f1.4
Nikon 50 f1.4
Nikon 85 f1.4

Pat
 
HitsOfMisses said:
17-55 will serve best at 2.8 & is ideal for low light whereas to get the best results out of 28-70, you'll need to shoot at around 5.6
Click to expand...
If I take that sentence literally, you're claiming the 17-55 has a 2 f/stop advantage over the 28-70. Since that effectively discredits you as a lens reviewer, I won't bother responding to the other points in your post that I disagree with. But, I"m curious about your enthusiasm for trashing the 28-70. Why Is it so important that Larry make the same choice as you?

Btw, here's a sample of the 28-70 taken at f/4.



--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank
FCAS Founder, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Dee 2 Hundred on order!
Gallery at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank/nikon
 
Phil Youngblood said:
What would be easier -- to crop a 55MM shot to a 70MM field of view
or back up through a wall when 28 is not wide enough? :)
Click to expand...
Phil, I'm concerned about your repeated behavior of backing up into walls at events. Maybe it has more to do with your choice of libations than your choice of lenses :-p.

Seriously, since I picked up the 28-70, I've been the prime photographer at 3 weddings and numerous smaller events, and I honestly can't think of an occasion where I lost an important shot because my lens wasn't wide enough. That's probably because I favor the intimate portrait, and my instinct is to get closer to the subject rather than back away. So in the end, it may just come down to shooting style, eh?



--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank
FCAS Founder, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Dee 2 Hundred on order!
Gallery at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank/nikon
 
Uncle Frank said:
Phil Youngblood said:
What would be easier -- to crop a 55MM shot to a 70MM field of view
or back up through a wall when 28 is not wide enough? :)
Click to expand...
Phil, I'm concerned about your repeated behavior of backing up
into walls at events. Maybe it has more to do with your choice of
libations than your choice of lenses :-p.
Click to expand...
A steady support can be a good thing when the bar is open.
Uncle Frank said:
Seriously, since I picked up the 28-70, I've been the prime
photographer at 3 weddings and numerous smaller events, and I
honestly can't think of an occasion where I lost an important shot
because my lens wasn't wide enough. That's probably because I
favor the intimate portrait, and my instinct is to get closer to
the subject rather than back away. So in the end, it may just come
down to shooting style, eh?
Click to expand...
I'm assuming the statement of mine you quoted above caused you to go blind to the second:

"A 28-70 would probably be better suited for dance competitions."

About your pic -- sometimes you can be TOO close. Did that first girl have beans for dinner? :)

Phil
 
The 17-55dx is a fine lens that I enjoyed the use of for the past 1 1/2 years. LL overcame me and I recently purchased the 28-70.

I liked the 17-55 a lot but I must say I love the 28-70. The added focal range better suits my shooting style. It would be nice to have kept both lens but I sold the 17-55 to help fund the 28-70.
BTW I think the 28-70 shoots great wide open.



Regards
Darrell
 
A model like that will make any lens look good :-). He/she's as bright and shiny as a new penny. Make sure to take a lot of Christmas pics of this kid.

--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank
FCAS Founder, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Dee 2 Hundred on order!
Gallery at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank/nikon
 
The photo is of my 6 month old niece who was paying a visit during Thanksgiving. She is quite photogenic! My new 2 month old grandson must think his granddad comes with a D2h & 28-70 nose.
Since that is the way he often sees me. lol
Regards
Darrell
 
Yes, to some extent.

I just figure that there is a point where quality is inhibited by the convenience factor (i.e. 18-300mm lens). Each person has to find out where that point is for themselves (i.e. some people choose to only use primes).

Pat
 
Seems like I bugged a few people here...
:)

I don't intend anyone to make the same choice as I did. I was sharing my experience plus whatever I read on these forums, when I was shopping for it myself. Larry may not get a good response because this topic has been beaten to death several times on these forums. It's ultimatey Larry's who has to decide based on what his priorites are.

If I was shooting a lot of portraits (not group) & if wide in low light was not a constraint, I would have definitely gone for 28-70. I like the warm skin tone from that lens. But then I decided that for such situations, I can buy 85 f1.4 once I start making good money. Meanwhile 70-200 can serve my purpose which I'll have to buy it, anyway!

The example you have given is of 28-70 f/4 in bright light, not in low light.

--
Warm Regards,
HitsOfMisses
http://www.pbase.com/HitsOfMisses
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top