Reading mode: Light Dark

Nikon 24-70 versus 17-55

Go to last post
J

Joseph Lab

Well-known member
Messages
197
Reaction score
0
Location
London, UK
I am an amateur photographer with quite a few years of experience in digital and with film. I have a D70s with 18-70, 18-200, 28-85 (old but good), 50 F1.4 and an SB800 flash. I skipped the D200, but intend buying a D300 in the not too distant future. I am not short of midrange zooms!

I have twice had a 17-55 F2.8 zoom but returned it. Recently I looked through my pictures and it struck me how much better the images made with the 50F1.4 and the 17-55F2.8 were. I am again contemplating the purchase of the 17-55 F2.8. The improvements as compared with my other lenses are particularly noticeable with people pictures, and my main subjects are my children. I returned the 17-55 because I had the 50 as a portrait lens, and I found that the 17-55 produced erratic results for reasons unknown. It was also very prone to flare (but I did not use the hood). I also felt that the long end was a bit short, and of course, the 50 is much faster. However, some of the images from the 17-55 were superb and the handling, speed of focus and control over DOF was particularly welcome. Regarding 55 versus 70, I have now found that simply leaning forward turns the 55 into a 70 at least at typical portrait distances. Furthermore, there is plenty to crop on a D300 image.

There is of course now a new alternative – the 24-70. It seems that with regard to image quality this is the best there is. The problem is size and range. 36-105 is of course a classic range, but loses a great deal at the wide-angle end when compared to 25-82. On the other hand, I read that the quality of the bokeh is better and 105 will give me better isolation. The handling also may be better, and of course it is full frame compatible, although I have no immediate intention of buying an FX Nikon. If Nikon produce a canon 5D equivalent I might be interested.

I would particularly like to hear from those who have the 17-55 and the 24-70 on how they feel about the two lenses in the areas of bokeh, handling and image quality. If you are able, curb your enthusiasm for your new toy and be as objective as possible (difficult with a new lens I know!)

The question of range is trickier (for me) than many may think. If you are say a photojournalist you need the 17-55 no question. However, for others especially amateurs when confronting a situation in which 17mm may be used an equally interesting but different shot may be made at 24mm. I have become more and more reluctant to change lenses. At the beginning of the day I attach the lens that I think will be on average be most suitable, and make do with that. This is a useful discipline to one’s shooting. However, I do find the 50 restrictive and would like that kind of quality (or better) in a zoom.

I would appreciate any comments and advice particularly on the 24-70 range versus the 17-55 range. I have a 17-55 available at a very good price and need to make up my mind. When thinking about it all that I seem to do is go round in a circle. The price difference is relevant but not critical. I will also be posting this question in the Canon forum. Canon users have a much longer history of this choice on their crop cameras, and I would be interested to hear from those who have switched from the 17-55 IS to the 24-70 or vice-versa, how much they missed the 17-24 range etc.

Any observations, comments that would help me make up my mind would be hugely appreciated. I am sure I am not the only one interested in this comparison. Thank you in advance.

Joseph
 
I have to assume that if you are considering the 17-55 you must be using a DX format camera.

On DX the 17-55 gives you the 35mm equivalent of a 25-84mm zoom 3.36X

On DX the 24-70 gives you the 35mm equivalent of a 36-105mm zoom 2.9x

If you had a full frame camera would you buy a 25-84 or would you buy a 36-105?

on DX with the 17-55 at 17mm you get a diagonal field of view of 80.6 degrees
on DX with the 24-70 at 24mm you get a diagonal field of view of 62.0 degrees

on DX with the 17-55 at 55mm you get a diagonal field of view of 29.4 degrees
on DX with the 24-70 at 70mm you get a diagonal field of view of 23.3 degrees

with the 17-55 you gain 18.6 degrees of field of view on the wide end and with the 24-70 you cut the field of view on the long end by 6.1 degrees

Both of these lenses are top notch professional grade lenses and the 24-70 may be a tad better optically, but the differences in range covered and what fits what you shoot far out weigh any of the optical differences.

I have seen many posts here where people have talked about switching from the 28-70 to the 24-70 because those 4mm on the wide end are such a big difference, well if those 4 are a big deal then the 7 more you get with the 17-55 could be potentially huge depending on what you shoot.

I can not tell you which lens will fit your style better, but the information above will hopefully help you in making your decision.

Good Luck

--
Nikon D80 & D200, 10.5mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 17-55mm f/2.8
85mm f/1.4, 200mm f/2VR, Lensbaby 3G
other assorted BS
 
some more information to help you

If you were to shoot a subject 15 feet away with a 70mm lens on dx in order to take the exact same shot with a 55mm lens you would have to move 3.2 feet closer and stand 11.8 feet from your subject (basically about 1 normal step)

If you were to shoot a subject at 15 feet at 17mm in order to get the same shot with a 24mm lens you would have back up 6.2 feet so that you were standing 21.2 feet from your subject

as you can tell the difference between these 2 lenses is much greater on the wide end than it is on the long end and the further you are from the subject the larger the difference gets

if you would like to know the differences at different subject distances you can use the yield of view calculator found here

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/field_of_view.html

--
Nikon D80 & D200, 10.5mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 17-55mm f/2.8
85mm f/1.4, 200mm f/2VR, Lensbaby 3G
other assorted BS
 
I am going through the same analysis you are. I decided on the 24-70 but it was a close decision. Now to find one.
--
Roger (W6VZV)
Huntington Harbour, California
Surf City, USA

'I want to die peacefully, in my sleep, like my Grandfather...'
Not screaming, and in terror, like his passengers...'

 
Thank you so much for quanitfying precisely the field of view considerations. It is always good to have some hard facts. The advantage at the long end of the 24-70 is more bokeh and isolation than field of view. If it was just field of view the 17-55 wins. Even for my style of shooting the 17-55 is the more useful range. However, for portraits the 24-70 is better and I do have those other lenses. The 24-70 seems to have (at least based on current information) an unquestionably great performance, whereas there have always been nagging doubts about the 17-55. I managed to produce a number of inexpicably poor images with the samples I had. Possibly some kind of user error.

I have played with the 24-70. It handles like a dream despite its size. Perhaps one should choose the lens that does best the things you do most. That would probably be the 24-70, and there is then full frame. But it certainly is less of a one lens solution.

Best wishes

Joseph
 
Thank you Roger. What made you go for the 24-70?

Joseph
Roger J. Buffington said:
I am going through the same analysis you are. I decided on the 24-70
but it was a close decision. Now to find one.
--
Roger (W6VZV)
Huntington Harbour, California
Surf City, USA

'I want to die peacefully, in my sleep, like my Grandfather...'
Not screaming, and in terror, like his passengers...'

Click to expand...
 
Along with bokeh, if you are mostly shooting portraits and catch shots of the kids and you found yourself stretching with the 17-55 to do that comfortably then most likely the 24-70 will be a better choice for you. It really doesn't matter about the rest of us ! If you said you are always backing up and running out of room that would be another matter but you didn't say that.

Just for the record, I find myself with DX going to the 24-85D as default over the 17-55 for the same kind of photos. I like the 17-55 for weddings though. The very first time I used the 17-55 for kids I found I felt as though I needed more reach, so have basically switched back to the 24-85D for families and kids but that's really a personal feeling and choice. Still, had the 24-70 been around when I purchased the 17-55 I can almost chance a bet on my buying it instead.

FWIW, longer lenses almost always render smoother background OOF.

David
Joseph Lab said:
I am an amateur photographer with quite a few years of experience in
digital and with film. I have a D70s with 18-70, 18-200, 28-85 (old
but good), 50 F1.4 and an SB800 flash. I skipped the D200, but
intend buying a D300 in the not too distant future. I am not short
of midrange zooms!

I have twice had a 17-55 F2.8 zoom but returned it. Recently I
looked through my pictures and it struck me how much better the
images made with the 50F1.4 and the 17-55F2.8 were. I am again
contemplating the purchase of the 17-55 F2.8. The improvements as
compared with my other lenses are particularly noticeable with people
pictures, and my main subjects are my children. I returned the 17-55
because I had the 50 as a portrait lens, and I found that the 17-55
produced erratic results for reasons unknown. It was also very prone
to flare (but I did not use the hood). I also felt that the long end
was a bit short, and of course, the 50 is much faster. However, some
of the images from the 17-55 were superb and the handling, speed of
focus and control over DOF was particularly welcome. Regarding 55
versus 70, I have now found that simply leaning forward turns the 55
into a 70 at least at typical portrait distances. Furthermore, there
is plenty to crop on a D300 image.

There is of course now a new alternative – the 24-70. It seems that
with regard to image quality this is the best there is. The problem
is size and range. 36-105 is of course a classic range, but loses a
great deal at the wide-angle end when compared to 25-82. On the
other hand, I read that the quality of the bokeh is better and 105
will give me better isolation. The handling also may be better, and
of course it is full frame compatible, although I have no immediate
intention of buying an FX Nikon. If Nikon produce a canon 5D
equivalent I might be interested.

I would particularly like to hear from those who have the 17-55 and
the 24-70 on how they feel about the two lenses in the areas of
bokeh, handling and image quality. If you are able, curb your
enthusiasm for your new toy and be as objective as possible
(difficult with a new lens I know!)

The question of range is trickier (for me) than many may think. If
you are say a photojournalist you need the 17-55 no question.
However, for others especially amateurs when confronting a situation
in which 17mm may be used an equally interesting but different shot
may be made at 24mm. I have become more and more reluctant to change
lenses. At the beginning of the day I attach the lens that I think
will be on average be most suitable, and make do with that. This is
a useful discipline to one’s shooting. However, I do find the 50
restrictive and would like that kind of quality (or better) in a zoom.

I would appreciate any comments and advice particularly on the 24-70
range versus the 17-55 range. I have a 17-55 available at a very
good price and need to make up my mind. When thinking about it all
that I seem to do is go round in a circle. The price difference is
relevant but not critical. I will also be posting this question in
the Canon forum. Canon users have a much longer history of this
choice on their crop cameras, and I would be interested to hear from
those who have switched from the 17-55 IS to the 24-70 or vice-versa,
how much they missed the 17-24 range etc.

Any observations, comments that would help me make up my mind would
be hugely appreciated. I am sure I am not the only one interested in
this comparison. Thank you in advance.

Joseph
Click to expand...
 
I can totally understand your desire for bokeh and isolation when shooting portraits. this is why I use my 17-55 as my event/travel lens. When I am seriously shooting portraits I use my 85mm f/1.4 or my 200 f/2

I have chosen a path where my work horse lens is the 17-55 and all of my specialty lenses are primes. for me this gives the most versatility along with little if any sacrifice in quality.

I would much rather shoot my serious portraits with a prime, even the 85mm f/1.8, than I would with any of the current mid range zooms. F/2 at 85 gives much better bokeh and isolation than you will ever get at 70mm and f/2.8
Joseph Lab said:
Thank you so much for quanitfying precisely the field of view
considerations. It is always good to have some hard facts. The
advantage at the long end of the 24-70 is more bokeh and isolation
than field of view. If it was just field of view the 17-55 wins.
Even for my style of shooting the 17-55 is the more useful range.
However, for portraits the 24-70 is better and I do have those other
lenses. The 24-70 seems to have (at least based on current
information) an unquestionably great performance, whereas there have
always been nagging doubts about the 17-55. I managed to produce a
number of inexpicably poor images with the samples I had. Possibly
some kind of user error.

I have played with the 24-70. It handles like a dream despite its
size. Perhaps one should choose the lens that does best the things
you do most. That would probably be the 24-70, and there is then
full frame. But it certainly is less of a one lens solution.

Best wishes

Joseph
Click to expand...
--
Nikon D80 & D200, 10.5mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 17-55mm f/2.8
85mm f/1.4, 200mm f/2VR, Lensbaby 3G
other assorted BS
 
Thanks David. The problem is that 70 is really very close to 55. It is only one step or a mild crop away. If you cannot go wide enough, that is it. Sometimes it is quite useful to anyway to have say a head and shoulders which you crop into a head shot, two for the price of one! If it were 24-85 F2.8, that would be different. For me it is finally coming down to image quality and bokeh against range. The range of the 17-55 on a crop camera gives greater flexibility. Unfortunately, I do not really know how much better image quality and bokeh are on the 24-70, so I guess I have insufficient information to make a rational decision.

Best wishes

Joseph
David Grabowski said:
Just for the record, I find myself with DX going to the 24-85D as
default over the 17-55 for the same kind of photos. I like the 17-55
for weddings though. The very first time I used the 17-55 for kids I
found I felt as though I needed more reach, so have basically
switched back to the 24-85D for families and kids but that's really a
personal feeling and choice. Still, had the 24-70 been around when I
purchased the 17-55 I can almost chance a bet on my buying it instead.

FWIW, longer lenses almost always render smoother background OOF.

David
Joseph Lab said:
I am an amateur photographer with quite a few years of experience in
digital and with film. I have a D70s with 18-70, 18-200, 28-85 (old
but good), 50 F1.4 and an SB800 flash. I skipped the D200, but
intend buying a D300 in the not too distant future. I am not short
of midrange zooms!

I have twice had a 17-55 F2.8 zoom but returned it. Recently I
looked through my pictures and it struck me how much better the
images made with the 50F1.4 and the 17-55F2.8 were. I am again
contemplating the purchase of the 17-55 F2.8. The improvements as
compared with my other lenses are particularly noticeable with people
pictures, and my main subjects are my children. I returned the 17-55
because I had the 50 as a portrait lens, and I found that the 17-55
produced erratic results for reasons unknown. It was also very prone
to flare (but I did not use the hood). I also felt that the long end
was a bit short, and of course, the 50 is much faster. However, some
of the images from the 17-55 were superb and the handling, speed of
focus and control over DOF was particularly welcome. Regarding 55
versus 70, I have now found that simply leaning forward turns the 55
into a 70 at least at typical portrait distances. Furthermore, there
is plenty to crop on a D300 image.

There is of course now a new alternative – the 24-70. It seems that
with regard to image quality this is the best there is. The problem
is size and range. 36-105 is of course a classic range, but loses a
great deal at the wide-angle end when compared to 25-82. On the
other hand, I read that the quality of the bokeh is better and 105
will give me better isolation. The handling also may be better, and
of course it is full frame compatible, although I have no immediate
intention of buying an FX Nikon. If Nikon produce a canon 5D
equivalent I might be interested.

I would particularly like to hear from those who have the 17-55 and
the 24-70 on how they feel about the two lenses in the areas of
bokeh, handling and image quality. If you are able, curb your
enthusiasm for your new toy and be as objective as possible
(difficult with a new lens I know!)

The question of range is trickier (for me) than many may think. If
you are say a photojournalist you need the 17-55 no question.
However, for others especially amateurs when confronting a situation
in which 17mm may be used an equally interesting but different shot
may be made at 24mm. I have become more and more reluctant to change
lenses. At the beginning of the day I attach the lens that I think
will be on average be most suitable, and make do with that. This is
a useful discipline to one’s shooting. However, I do find the 50
restrictive and would like that kind of quality (or better) in a zoom.

I would appreciate any comments and advice particularly on the 24-70
range versus the 17-55 range. I have a 17-55 available at a very
good price and need to make up my mind. When thinking about it all
that I seem to do is go round in a circle. The price difference is
relevant but not critical. I will also be posting this question in
the Canon forum. Canon users have a much longer history of this
choice on their crop cameras, and I would be interested to hear from
those who have switched from the 17-55 IS to the 24-70 or vice-versa,
how much they missed the 17-24 range etc.

Any observations, comments that would help me make up my mind would
be hugely appreciated. I am sure I am not the only one interested in
this comparison. Thank you in advance.

Joseph
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I agree entirely - the 85 will give better isolation than the 24-70. I am not sure about the overall quality. The latest pro zooms seem to ouperform primes if not in sharpness then in some other hard to define way. The 17-55 seems better than the 50 F1.4, certainly at F4 and perhaps even at F2.8. However, if I were using the 85 I would then have to change lenses for many other shots. I have found that irritating with the 50, and it would be more so with the 85. I am looking to make the right compromise for my shooting style, which is try not to change lenses if at all possible. I don't want to be just the photographer with my kids, I want to participate! Furthermore, I like AFS and feel very hard done by when I use a non AFS lens. Now a new AFS 85 prime, that might be different perhaps. What I really need to find out is whether the image quality of the 24-70 is significantly better than the 17-55, especially in the 55 and 24 range.

How do you find the 17-55 stacks up against the absolutley no compromise lenses that you have such as the 85 F1.4 and the 200F2?

Best wishes

Joseph
coorslight said:
I have chosen a path where my work horse lens is the 17-55 and all of
my specialty lenses are primes. for me this gives the most
versatility along with little if any sacrifice in quality.

I would much rather shoot my serious portraits with a prime, even the
85mm f/1.8, than I would with any of the current mid range zooms. F/2
at 85 gives much better bokeh and isolation than you will ever get at
70mm and f/2.8
Joseph Lab said:
Thank you so much for quanitfying precisely the field of view
considerations. It is always good to have some hard facts. The
advantage at the long end of the 24-70 is more bokeh and isolation
than field of view. If it was just field of view the 17-55 wins.
Even for my style of shooting the 17-55 is the more useful range.
However, for portraits the 24-70 is better and I do have those other
lenses. The 24-70 seems to have (at least based on current
information) an unquestionably great performance, whereas there have
always been nagging doubts about the 17-55. I managed to produce a
number of inexpicably poor images with the samples I had. Possibly
some kind of user error.

I have played with the 24-70. It handles like a dream despite its
size. Perhaps one should choose the lens that does best the things
you do most. That would probably be the 24-70, and there is then
full frame. But it certainly is less of a one lens solution.

Best wishes

Joseph
Click to expand...
--
Nikon D80 & D200, 10.5mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2, 17-55mm f/2.8
85mm f/1.4, 200mm f/2VR, Lensbaby 3G
other assorted BS
Click to expand...
 
I have a 17-55 and have compared it to some other lenses like the 28/1.4 and the 17-35. My 17-55 outperformed both at least at f2.8 and f4 regarding sharpnes/resolution.

I also find that the 17-55 might not give the most contrasty images it delievers very nice transitions between the tones.

I could see how the 24-70 could suit your needs a little better for shooting portraits. 15 mm is not much but as mentioned before the difference between using a 82mm lens or 105mm and I think the difference can be seen.
I wonder how the 24-70 works in regards of bokeh.
Have you compared those 2 lenses sizewise?

Even if I had the 24-70 for kids and portrait photos I think I still would want the 17-55 for general purpose. Personally I dont like the big hood.
Cheers, Tom
 
Thank you for the response. You sound very positive on the 17-55. My high rating for the 17-55 is based partly on what for want of a better word I would call dimensionality. Images seem three dimensional, particularly people. In this respect it is better than the 50 F1.4. Is it the hood on the 24-70 you don't like or the 17-55?

Best wishes

Joseph
Thomas Streng said:
I have a 17-55 and have compared it to some other lenses like the
28/1.4 and the 17-35. My 17-55 outperformed both at least at f2.8 and
f4 regarding sharpnes/resolution.
I also find that the 17-55 might not give the most contrasty images
it delievers very nice transitions between the tones.
I could see how the 24-70 could suit your needs a little better for
shooting portraits. 15 mm is not much but as mentioned before the
difference between using a 82mm lens or 105mm and I think the
difference can be seen.
I wonder how the 24-70 works in regards of bokeh.
Have you compared those 2 lenses sizewise?
Even if I had the 24-70 for kids and portrait photos I think I still
would want the 17-55 for general purpose. Personally I dont like the
big hood.
Cheers, Tom
Click to expand...
 
Joseph Lab said:
Thank you Roger. What made you go for the 24-70?

Joseph
Click to expand...
The 70 range means more to me than the wide-angle (I have other lenses for that.) Also the fact that it is a FF lens. Plus I handled one and just plain liked it. (It was already sold so I couldn't buy it on the spot, drat.) I figure I am going to have the lens more or less forever, so the extra dough will amortize.

--
Roger (W6VZV)
Huntington Harbour, California
Surf City, USA

'I want to die peacefully, in my sleep, like my Grandfather...'
Not screaming, and in terror, like his passengers...'

 
I offer up the following. Yeah, this will add to the confusion but these are actual stats so may show there is no right answer. In both of the below situations, I had the 17-55, 85/1.4, and 70-200 in my bag. I do not own a 28/28-70 but had the range covered.

This is from a recent vacation trip and I would hazard a guess includes the range of shots most people would take. As you can see, without the wide end of my 17-55, I would have been up the proverbial creek.



Now, here's the focal length stats from a wedding I shot a couple of weeks ago. Since this covers the rehearsal dinner, pre-wedding candid and posed shots, the ceremony, and the reception, it is indicative of most any event type shooting. If you will notice the large number of shots at 55MM, that would tend to make one think I was hitting the wall on the long end and would have benefited greatly by having a 24-70. While that is true, what would I have done for the 100+ shots taken wider than 24MM?



Strangely enough, I didn't take a single shot with my 85 -- and I love that lens, especially for those "special" wedding shots. ((shrug))

I guess this says there is no right or wrong on the choice between the subject lenses. The best you can do is review your tendencies as best you can to make an educated guess.

Phil
 
I have handled one very briefly, and it is a beauty. They are available here, but are even more expensive than in the USA. It is a very close call for me between the two lenses. I think it comes down to how much bokeh and image quality advantage (if any) there is to the 24-70 as compared to the 17-55. It will be hard to get good information on this, and perhaps I should just go with my gut after handling both lenses.

Joseph
Roger J. Buffington said:
Joseph Lab said:
Thank you Roger. What made you go for the 24-70?

Joseph
Click to expand...
The 70 range means more to me than the wide-angle (I have other
lenses for that.) Also the fact that it is a FF lens. Plus I
handled one and just plain liked it. (It was already sold so I
couldn't buy it on the spot, drat.) I figure I am going to have the
lens more or less forever, so the extra dough will amortize.

--
Roger (W6VZV)
Huntington Harbour, California
Surf City, USA

'I want to die peacefully, in my sleep, like my Grandfather...'
Not screaming, and in terror, like his passengers...'

Click to expand...
 
Is there a program available that captures that data? I've been trying to "eyeball" my exif data in Bridge to figure out what focal lengths I typically shoot at so that I can make a rational decision on what lenses to buy.
--
Mitra
http://jmlphotography.smugmug.com/
 
Thanks for the prompt reply. I've downloaded the program already. Unfortunately it only works with jpeg files. I shoot raw and convert to PSD files. CS3 Bridge has a filter function that tells you iso used and other parameters but for some reason it doesn't split out focal length.
--
Mitra
http://jmlphotography.smugmug.com/
 
Hi Phil, I am glad you chimed in. Thank you for the very interesting range statistics. There are similarities between the kind of photography I do and photographing weddings. If I were doing weddings, it would have to be the 17-55, not even a question. However, photographing family and kids I do not need the wide range as much as a wedding photographer would.

Even for weddings range statistics such as those you posted are to some extent misleading. We tend to use and make the best of what is to hand. If you have 17mm, you use it. If you only had only 24mm, you probably would have made a plan and come back with most of the shots you needed, or correct me if I am wrong. Unless I am trying for an effect or trying to squeeze a whole group into a picture in a confined space, I do not like the way people look at anything much wider than 35 mm (FX equivalent). So many wide-angle images seem to me to be gimmicky and clichéd. I suppose what I am trying to say is that one’s tendencies are to some extent determined by what one has available and not simply a given.

I think I read in one of your posts that you were thinking of buying the 24-70. Would this be for use mainly on a D3 or will you be using it on a DX camera as an addition to your 17-55? I know that you are very particular about image quality. What is your view on the image quality of the 24-70 on a DX camera as compared to the 17-55? Can you point me to any comparisons with images? Do you have any first hand experience with the lens? Although big, it handles superbly and certainly feels very good on a D200. Can any one else comment?

I am hitting the hay now; it is late over the pond, but I will be looking on line for inspiration tomorrow. Any information gratefully received. I could pick up my 17-55 tomorrow or today I should say, but I cannot help wondering whether I might not get more joy out of the 24-70 and a better long-term investment. I will not be buying the 85 F1.4, so the new lens must work for portraits and do more besides. I note that you did not use your 85F1.4 despite its superb image quality. I rarely use my 50, it is just too bothersome to attach it for a few shots and then take it off for other shots. We are spoilt by the AFS zooms. What little they may lack in optimal image quality as compared to the best primes they make up for in convenience. This is a tough call for me.

Best wishes

Joseph
 
Phil,

I couldn't help but notice on your chart that you butted up against 55mm a huge number of times. I can't help but wonder how many of those 55mm shots would have been longer if you had a 24-70mm range to work with? I opted for a 12-24 Tokin f/4.0 lens for my wide shots and don't regret it one bit. I actually use it about 3 times more often than I had anticipated when I bought it.

For me, when I can afford it, I will add the 24-70 and sell the 18-200. Then I will have the 12-200 covered with my 12-24, 24-70 (don't have yet) and 70-200 (wonderful lens!). I also have the 60mm Micro and 105VR.

One question if anyone knows: Will the Kenko PRO 300 2.0x tele-converter work on the 24-70 lens?

--
Scott
 
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