Nikon 24-70 versus 17-55

Started Jan 6, 2008 | Discussions thread
OP Joseph Lab Regular Member • Posts: 197
Re: D3

Phil Youngblood wrote:

Ah, --OK. I'm sure they are fine for what you needed but probably not
for posting as a definitive set. Especially 10MB worth.

These images have not had that much inflluence on my decision.

Worse still I made my favourite mistake on the d70s - forgot to change the
ISO back down to 200 after attempting some available light shots, so
they are at 800. It is a mistake I keep making.

I do that ALL the time with my D70, even before I got my D200 and had
somewhat of an excuse for doing so. It's just maddening to get home
and upload a bunch of high ISO shots when it wasn't needed because
there is a decided difference in image quality. I did it on this last
wedding I shot, in a hurry and not paying attention -- drives me

It certainly is, and always seems to happen when I think I have just taken some of my best shots.

Nonetheless, I do see differences between them at full size which are
in favour of the 24-70 and in line with what others have said about
that lens, such as another Mike and Bjorn etc.

I would hope so and expect that to be the case, especially since I am
planning to buy one. Apparently a whole different set of design
problems present themselves when the FL goes wider than 25MM, more so
if trying to bridge the gap from wide to normal. I am hoping the
24-70 is more like my 70-200 and less like my 17-55.

No explanation required because I am in heavy lust for a D3 myself.
It's those images! My, oh, my but they are NICE. The problem is only
going to get worse when the high IQ version of the D3 is released.
((sigh)) I think it a good idea to stay away from the DX lenses at
this point because there will be a less expensive FX Nikon at some
point. That's part of why I suggested you go with the 24-70 up-thread.

This hobby is getting rather expensive, huh!

It sure is. However if we look at designing a camera as a technical problem, the D3 "solves" that problem even though performance and price improvements will no doubt continue. I would argue that the problem is now solved. The technology seems now to be mature for the first time, and the camera will not date significantly for some time. If by the time the FX lite comes out I may have been through a couple of other bodies and not enjoying FX for two more years. Maybe cheaper to have D3 now.

I then had a another crazy thought. My D3 with the 24-70 on the D3 is a 24-105 F2.8 5 megapixels or better all the way. I don't need more than 5megapixels, look at the shots with the D2Hs with only four! My old 70-210 F4-F5.6 will be 70 ot 300. VR, who needs it at ISO 1600 (at least outdoors). Then there is my literally unused and excellent 28-85 f3.5-F4.5 zoom. My 50 f1.4 for the black cat in the coal cellar and at the "normal" focal length. The sensor is kinder to lenses than high density sensors.

Four things hold me back:

1. Size and wieght
2. cost

3. the excellence of the D300 at a very reasonable price. The high ISO performance of the D3 is spectacular considering the pixel density, and it has so much D3 technology built into it.

Question: I wonder how the noise performance of the 12 megapix D300 image will compare with the noise performance of the 5 megapix crop mode of the D300 when the images are viewed at the same size? I can't seem to get my head round that one, anyone out there know?

Best wishes


Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow