Nikon 24-70 versus 17-55

I just got a FX format D3 on Friday afternoon. Having played with it for just two days, I'm inclined to think that 1) the D3 is a great camera, but 2) I will also keep a DX format camera.

IMHO, the 17-55 DX is the ultimate PJ / Event / Wedding lens for DX format cameras. Even though I have a 24-70 f2.8 on order, I have no plans to unload my 17-55 DX. I would miss it too much on DX cameras. As has already been illustrated earlier in this thread the difference between 17mm and 24mm is very large on DX format whereas the difference between 55 and 70 mm is small.

In summary, I think DX format will remain popular and the 17-55 DX is optimized to this format. I would encourage all DX shooters to seriously consider the 17-55 DX.

Regards,
Brent

coorslight said:

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

Click to expand...

Actually you can't take the exact same shot with a different focal length lens by moving closer or farther away. When you move you change the perspective.

Thus, 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 stand in the same spot, take the shot, and then crop the one taken with the 55mm lens.

Joseph Lab said:

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.

Click to expand...

Subjectively, I can tell you what I try to do. Due to distortion and a slight amount of right side softness with my copy, I always try to stay away from the widest end. Keystoning on buildings can be bad but is death to people pics. I usually have the viewfinder to my eye while zooming around and if I hit the wide end stop (17MM), I take a loot to see if I can reposition to use a longer FL. That's my subjective method. Objectively, I have all these files I can look at to see what I really did. A fairly detailed look just finished (but not actual calculations) shows for about 35% of the wider shots, I could have backed up a little and used a longer FL. On the other end, however, there is little doubt I could have moved closer on all but 2 or 3 of the 55MM shots. That's the back of my mind working with the knowledge I have all these pixels and the great image quality of the 17-55 that lends itself to cropping very well. I won't do that on any shot I think has the potential to be printed over 8X10 but will not hesitate for anything smaller.

Joseph Lab said:

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).

Click to expand...

Just like me hitting the wide stop as explained above, we all impose limitations on what we are willing to do. That limit may be different for personal use vs for clients but I will tell you I have several group shots for this past wedding and others at 20MM and even wider. Again, I try to stay away for those but will not hesitate if the situation dictates.

Joseph Lab said:

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?

Click to expand...

I will not be getting a D3 any time soon, even though I would love to have one. My "for pay" shooting is still "on the side (not my primary source of income) so I don't need to burn more than I make on equipment. I had VERY high hopes for the 24-70, and I do mean very high. I hoped for it to be the perfect match for my 70-200, out-performing the 28-70. However, it seems the 14-24 is the REAL star of the new zooms -- one to die for, so to speak. Now, I will still be getting a 24-70 to use by itself for some shoots or on a second body for others, I just won't be getting it quite as quick. I have been corresponding with a friend who is lucky dog enough to own BOTH the 14-24 and the 24-70 and I trust his opinion implicitly. That's not to say we might not have a difference of opinion for time to time -- I just know his opinion is VERY honest and formed from logical, objective data. He has sent me a few full size comparison shots with his very good copy of the 28-70 and the 24-70 is slightly "better" in IQ -- slightly sharper with improved contrast. He has since learned his copy of the 24-70 has a slight focusing issue so it may be even better than seen at first blush. I am a little put off by the corner softness on the wide end and other reports of focusing issues but not enough to keep me from buying it. I'm just going to wait a bit to let Nikon work through the beta release.

Joseph Lab said:

I note that you did not use your 85F1.4 despite its superb
image quality.

Click to expand...

That was purely a "time" issue. The bride and groom as well as the rest of the party were about an hour late for the shoot. Seems to be fairly typical over here -- don't know what to do about it. I had MANY shots planned with the 85 because we were at a great venue for photography and have NO doubt we could have made some stunners, even with my limited skills. We barely had time to shoot the formals and posed shots they wanted, much less any of my "special" shots with the 85. It's their loss.

As for 17-55 or 24-70, I think I would suggest you go with the 24-70. Especially if you could test one. You seem to have it in your mind it is the right FL for you and that goes a LONG way towards making it correct. I actually believe the IQ of the 24-70 will be superior to the 17-55, even if you have to go to 100% to see it. It's not very much and probably won't matter on the majority of shots but I do think it is there. I already know it has better contrast and that is a HUGE# factor in IQ -- much more important than "sharpness". I honestly think you will be pleased with the 24-70, FX or DX.

Good luck with your decision!

Phil

Scott Weierich said:

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?

Click to expand...

That's quite true, Scott, and is why I am going to buy a 24-70 in the future. However, please read my reply to Joseph on the reason for the large number of 55 shots. Essentially, it's due to my laziness.

Even when I get the 24-70, I can almost guarantee the 17-55 will still be my primary lens at weddings and similar events, at least on DX.

Phil

For people photography, kids and the like you miost likkely will get more use from the 24-70. I know i do from the 24-85 D than from the 17-55. THe 17-55 was purchased becasue the 28-70 wasn't wide enough and the Sigma 15-30 didn't extend enough and there was no 24-70 yet from Nikon. I used to shoot weddings with the 15-30 and 24-85D combo because sometimes you are forced against the wall and 24 wasn't wide enough, same for overall church interior shots. With family and portraits in general you have time and ability to plan around that. There are enough 12-24 lenses or some such thing for your wide shooting of things other than people you can get eventually too.

We shoot all our high school senior portrait sessions at the beach and in the studio with the 24-85D and 70-200 on a second body FWIW. I use a 50 1.8 also.

we shoot group shots around 30mm. in fact I once did a review of my images taken over a years time and found 33mm. to be my average focal length for the year ( says a lot for owning a 30 or 35mm. prime) !!!!

David

you are 100% correct, I should have said "exact same framing"

CCarroll said:

coorslight said:

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

Click to expand...

Actually you can't take the exact same shot with a different focal
length lens by moving closer or farther away. When you move you
change the perspective.

Thus, 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
stand in the same spot, take the shot, and then crop the one taken
with the 55mm lens.

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 Phil for all your time and trouble, a few more questions/comments.

Do you have a12-24 or similar? A bad thought occurs to me, that I could justify the 17-55 as my wide-angle, and have both lenses! The widest lens I have ever owned is a 24mm Olympus some years ago. I am not sure whether I would get any joy out of an ultra wide. Buying one just for the range between 12 and 17 and F4 to boot seems hardly worthwhile.

I was interested in your comments on the performance of the 24-70. If it is “only” slightly better than the 28-70, then how does it compare with the 17-55 in the F2.8-4 range? I think it is your opinion that the 17-55 was better there than the 28-70, so wither the 24-70? Some may think that we are splitting hairs here, but the extra quality of the primes and pro zooms (not just sharpness) can be seen at quite small magnifications once you have noticed it and want it. Of course you know all this better than I do.

It may be a crazy thought, but the conventional wisdom is that an FX lens will perform even better on a DX camera and outperform a lens specifically designed for that format. I am not sure that this is true in the midrange zoom category. It is much easier to correct for aberrations over the smaller image circle for a lens that goes from wide-angle to moderate telephoto. True you are not using the corners with the FX lens, but corner performance is only one thing and not that important to me. What I am suggesting is that the 17-55 may be as good as it gets in a midrange zoom for a DX because it has been designed specifically for DX. One or two of my 17-55 images are perhaps the best I have (technically), but then there are the inexplicably poor ones.

If I had the 24-70, I would be far more tempted to buy the 12-24, so buying the 24-70 will certainly be an expensive choice. I could buy the 17-55 and the 12-24 for almost the same money. I could instead throw in the 70-300 and have change in my pocket to put towards the D300. With regard to the latter, I am waiting for the beta testing to end and the prices to fall a bit. I have learned not to be an early adopter. With a pro lens from Nikon, I might just consider it.

If we look at Canon user’s many seem to think that their 17-55 IS outperforms the 24-70 on a crop camera, in fact that seems to be the consensus view. It does so despite the fact that the lens has the added complexity of IS and is not an L lens. Of course, that may just be peculiar to their specific designs. I know that there was a lot of trouble with the early Canon 24-70s. I suspect it is far from easy to design an FX lens with top performance over this range. It just may be that it is easier to design a crop 17-55 of given quality than a FF 24-70. I think that so far the superiority of the 24-70 in terms of mage quality on DX is unproven.

Do you know of any good portraits taken with the 24-70? If you have links, it would be much appreciated. There was nothing much on pbase.

With regard to the portraits missed with the the 85, I suppose I am wondering whether you could have come close with the 24-70 and still got most of your other shots without a lens change. The isolation and bokeh of the 17-55 just misses, the 24-70 may just do it.

I would love to be able to test the lenses. This is far more difficult in the UK, and in my view it should be. I cannot but wonder what happens to all those returned items. Are they restocked and sold as new? I would not wish to buy as new a lens that had been tested and rejected by somebody else. It is a bit like wanting to sleep with every woman in town and marry a virgin! For me new is untouched by any end users and preferably in a sealed box. I am amazed that there has not been a legal challenge to the policy of exchanging merchandise in this way. It amounts to selling second-hand goods as new. If a lens is not performing, it should be returned to the manufacturer for repair or replacement. End of sermon! Of course until the rules are changed I would take advantage of any opportunity to test.

Best wishes

Joseph

Thank you David. Some people do find the split at 24 mm very inconvenient and they have to keep changing lenses. Just about every manufacturer that I know of seems to think that the ideal range for a midrange zoom is 24/28 to 70/85 rather than 35 to 105. It is easier and cheaper to build the latter, so I can only assume that the former range is much more useful for most users. Much of the benefit of a zoom comes from avoiding lens changes. If I am an exception and the popular range is not best for my needs I need to convince myself that I am.

Best wishes

Joseph

David Grabowski said:

For people photography, kids and the like you miost likkely will get
more use from the 24-70. I know i do from the 24-85 D than from the
17-55. THe 17-55 was purchased becasue the 28-70 wasn't wide enough
and the Sigma 15-30 didn't extend enough and there was no 24-70 yet
from Nikon. I used to shoot weddings with the 15-30 and 24-85D combo
because sometimes you are forced against the wall and 24 wasn't wide
enough, same for overall church interior shots. With family and
portraits in general you have time and ability to plan around that.
There are enough 12-24 lenses or some such thing for your wide
shooting of things other than people you can get eventually too.

We shoot all our high school senior portrait sessions at the beach
and in the studio with the 24-85D and 70-200 on a second body FWIW. I
use a 50 1.8 also.
we shoot group shots around 30mm. in fact I once did a review of my
images taken over a years time and found 33mm. to be my average focal
length for the year ( says a lot for owning a 30 or 35mm. prime) !!!!

David

Click to expand...

Thanks Brent. I am leaning towards the 17-55 for the reasons you give. It may actually outperform the the 24-70 on the DX format.

Best wishes

Joseph

This has been a very good thread. I often go back and forth on adding the 24-70 to the kit (10-20 Sigma, 17-55, 80-200 AFS, and my new favorite the 85 1.4, plus a few odds and ends that seem to collect dust), or to replace the 17-55 and sell th 17-55.

Often I listen to the tempting songs of the Sirens. You know, the promise of better pictures, more keeprs, etc. The 24-70 seems like that to me.

What broke the song for me was the purchase of the 85 1.4. My gosh what a lens.

Between that and the 17-55, I don't see a need to add or replace.

So for me, after all the rambling is done. I'm sticking to the 17-55 for my DX cameras.

If there is and FX in the future, I'll add the 24-70. I can only imagine how much sweeter the 85 will be on that machine.

Whatever your decision, I hope the worst picture you get from it is better than best photo you have taken to date.

--
ssjackson

I have the 17-55 and I'm not replacing it, it's ideal for weddings . Course too, I have the 24-85D and 70-200 which do our family portraits and thelike. I also still find use for the 50-1.8.

One day here Joseph will be biting the bullet it seems !

David

sjackson462000 said:

This has been a very good thread. I often go back and forth on adding
the 24-70 to the kit (10-20 Sigma, 17-55, 80-200 AFS, and my new
favorite the 85 1.4, plus a few odds and ends that seem to collect
dust), or to replace the 17-55 and sell th 17-55.

Often I listen to the tempting songs of the Sirens. You know, the
promise of better pictures, more keeprs, etc. The 24-70 seems like
that to me.

What broke the song for me was the purchase of the 85 1.4. My gosh
what a lens.

Between that and the 17-55, I don't see a need to add or replace.

So for me, after all the rambling is done. I'm sticking to the 17-55
for my DX cameras.

If there is and FX in the future, I'll add the 24-70. I can only
imagine how much sweeter the 85 will be on that machine.

Whatever your decision, I hope the worst picture you get from it is
better than best photo you have taken to date.

--
ssjackson

Click to expand...

Phil Youngblood said:

However, it seems the 14-24 is the REAL
star of the new zooms -- one to die for, so to speak. Now, I will
still be getting a 24-70

Click to expand...

I have the 24-70 and love it. I'm struggling with adding the 14-24 (FX) or the 17-55 (DX) to the 24-70 I have. The 17-55 seems a good walk about lens (shorter and lighter than the 24-70); but is the overlap redundant? Just how much (really useful) is the difference between 14 (ie 21 on the D300) and 17 (ie 25.5 on the D300)?

If you intend sticking to the DX format you could almost buy the 17-55 and the 12-24. I am not sure that I would buy the 14-22 unless I was about to go FX. In terms of field of view there is a big difference between 14 and 17. If it were me I would go for the 17-55.

Are happy with the 24-30 range on your 24-70?

Best wishes

Joseph

Nothing more enjoyable than a bit of indecision! Besides, which ever one I buy I will feel sure I should have bought the other. I will just exchange one form of torment for another. Often "difficult" decisiions like this are only difficult becuase it really does not matter one way or the other, they are both superb lenses. I am handling them both tomorrow, and may just go with my gut. Analysis only takes you so far. At the moment the 17-55 is ahead by a whisker because of cost and my aversion to lens changinng. I do not like 17 that much, but I find 20-21 useful.

Best wishes

Joseph

Phil,

Excellent piece of software. It gave an very good perspective on which focal lens I have been using. Thank you so much for the advice.

Like Joseph, I have been debating in which lens to get. After loading the software, it was pretty clear that my range is heavy between 40 and 70mm.

Have a good one!

Joseph Lab said:

Thanks Phil for all your time and trouble, a few more
questions/comments.

Click to expand...

No problem -- glad to help if I can. It's always fun to spend someone else's money.

Joseph Lab said:

Do you have a12-24 or similar? A bad thought occurs to me, that I
could justify the 17-55 as my wide-angle, and have both lenses! The
widest lens I have ever owned is a 24mm Olympus some years ago. I am
not sure whether I would get any joy out of an ultra wide. Buying
one just for the range between 12 and 17 and F4 to boot seems hardly
worthwhile.

Click to expand...

I do not have anything wider than the 17-55. I keep telling myself I will get one when the need arises but, so far, the 17-55 has filled the bill. That said, take another look at the stats from my vacation shoot. Yes, I sorely needed a 12-24 on that trip but I don't take trips too often. I'm not the landscape shooter I once was.

Joseph Lab said:

I was interested in your comments on the performance of the 24-70.
If it is “only” slightly better than the 28-70, then how does it
compare with the 17-55 in the F2.8-4 range?

Click to expand...

No zoom compares to the 17-55 in that aperture range -- none. I do have indication from my friend with the 14-24 that it is possibly better than the 17-55 when shot wide but I don't have independent knowledge of that bit. He has no extensive knowledge of the 17-55 so it would probably take a side-by-side to settle the issue. I don't think the 24-70 will match it except maybe on the long end. That is what the 17-55 does. No other need apply.

Joseph Lab said:

I think it is your
opinion that the 17-55 was better there than the 28-70, so wither the
24-70? Some may think that we are splitting hairs here, but the
extra quality of the primes and pro zooms (not just sharpness) can be
seen at quite small magnifications once you have noticed it and want
it. Of course you know all this better than I do.

Click to expand...

Humm -- as an across the board statement, no -- I have never said the 17-55 is "better" than the 28-70. They each have things they do well that the other doesn't do so well. Agai, in the wide aperture range, the 17-55 is clearly better, except for the boke. As for a "people" lens shot somewhat stopped down, I think the 28-70 is "better" and feel the 24-70 will improve on that aspect. That's just opinion since I have not touched the 24-70, only studied.

Oops -- got to get offline for a little while. I will post this bit and finish a little later.

To be continued.

Phil

I believe you are spot on. The indecision is because it really doesn't matter which lens you get. You will be good to go whatever you get, and somehow, someway, the creativity you bring will make up any differences.
--
ssjackson

Do you like the 24-85? Just curious about when you use it vs the 17-55.

I have one and seldom use it. Just couldn't seem to pull the 17-55 off and put the other on.
--
ssjackson

has the 24-70mm f/2.8 in stock (8:28 pm CST). You should be able to get one now.

Best!
--

• Bill

Joseph Lab wrote:
OK -- where was I before I was so rudely interrupted?

Back to IQ, one vs the other:

The 17-55 is just brutally truthful, for lack of a better term. As I have said before, if you are ugly, your pic is going to be ugly -- and brutally sharp. The 70-200 is also brutally sharp on people but only stopped down. When shot F4 and wider, it gives people pics a very nice quality. The 28-70 does the same thing even when stopped down more plus having the extra FL to help blur distracting backgrounds. I'm thinking the 24-70 will also give people pics a certain quality and that holds true from the portrait type shots I have seen. All that said, the 17-55 serves me VERY well as a wedding and event lens and those are ALL people shots. I just have to study them close with a possible eye towards softening some of them. About the only thing that gets on my last nerve about the 17-55 is the boke. Given the right set of circumstances, it can be down right ugly. I had some outdoor shots I would have loved to shoot F4 to F2.8 but didn't dare because of what the background may have looked like. If you get just the right conditions, even a big application of gaussian blur won't fix it. I have a feeling the 24-70, much like the 28-70, would not have that issue.

Joseph Lab said:

It may be a crazy thought, but the conventional wisdom is that an FX
lens will perform even better on a DX camera and outperform a lens
specifically designed for that format. I am not sure that this is
true in the midrange zoom category. It is much easier to correct for
aberrations over the smaller image circle for a lens that goes from
wide-angle to moderate telephoto.

Click to expand...

I try my best to not get into the mystery that is optical design. It's just so much magic dust and chicken blood to me. I hinge all my bets on look and feel and in that respect, all the "pro level" lenses do very well on DX.

Joseph Lab said:

If I had the 24-70, I would be far more tempted to buy the 12-24, so
buying the 24-70 will certainly be an expensive choice. I could buy
the 17-55 and the 12-24 for almost the same money. I could instead
throw in the 70-300 and have change in my pocket to put towards the
D300. With regard to the latter, I am waiting for the beta testing
to end and the prices to fall a bit. I have learned not to be an
early adopter. With a pro lens from Nikon, I might just consider it.

Click to expand...

I've got my eye on a D300, as well. These wedding shoots let me know I need two WORKING bodies, not one working and one backup like my D70 is now. With my tendency to shoot from the hip, I simply need more than 6MP for cropping. A 200/17-55 on one shoulder and a 300/85 1.4 on the other would make me feel better about things.

Joseph Lab said:

It
just may be that it is easier to design a crop 17-55 of given quality
than a FF 24-70. I think that so far the superiority of the 24-70 in
terms of mage quality on DX is unproven.

Click to expand...

Oh, there is NO doubt in my feeble mind the 17-55 is BY FAR the most useful single lens on DX, bar none. It's just that siren call of new glass has my attention right now. Even when I get a 24-70, I'll guarantee you the 17-55 will still be my most used. A look at the stats from my shoots tells me that.

Joseph Lab said:

Do you know of any good portraits taken with the 24-70? If you have
links, it would be much appreciated. There was nothing much on pbase.

Click to expand...

Mostly what I have seen are those on the Nikon site with the D3. Those are absolutely amazing. Hopefully some forum buds will have some up before long.

Joseph Lab said:

With regard to the portraits missed with the the 85, I suppose I am
wondering whether you could have come close with the 24-70 and still
got most of your other shots without a lens change. The isolation
and bokeh of the 17-55 just misses, the 24-70 may just do it.

Click to expand...

Nope -- no way in h*ll. Sorry, but nothing -- and I do mean NOTHING -- will touch properly executed portrait shots from the 85/1.4. Especially any newer glass loaded with ED elements. Oh, there are some other older design lenses like the 105DC that would serve very well but none of the newer stuff. There's just too much harsh contrast and in-your-face feel to the images -- not the sharp but smooth of the 85/1.4.

I'm with you on the open box deal. If I'm going to drop that much cash on a lens, I'd better be the first to let out the factory air in the box.

Good luck on your decision. Lens decisions drive me crazy -- everything is a compromise.

Phil