17-55 or 24-70 2.8

I am looking to buy either of the above lenses.I curently own 70-300 and 18-200 which I had fixed because the auto focus broke 1 week before I took my grand children to Disney. They rushed the 18-200 back to me in time for the trip and after taking 8 pictures it stopped auto focusing again.I dont have much confidence in this lense any longer. They said they would fix it again but it kind of made it very hard to shoot 3year old twins running around at Disney as it was very crowded. Does anyone have any preferences.I think both are 2.8 and about the same cost.

I can't speak for the 24-70 but I did deliberate this recently and ended up buying the 17-55. This was based on a number of factors:

1. Cost. It all relative, but in my experience they are not 'about the same cost'. I was able to pick up the 17-55 for about 30% less than the best price I could find on the 24-70.

2. Smaller size. I bought the lens as a 'stay on' lens and for the time being do not intend to carry a second lens. The 18-24 (to me) seems too large as an everyday carry round lens.

3. Shooting style. My previous lens was a 18-135. After spending some time looking at my picture library it was obvious that the majority of my pictures were taken at a focal length of less than 50mm. Although the extra reach is undoubtedly handy, I would have found it a bigger issue to have lost the range between 18 & 24mm.

The nay sayers will point out that the 17-55 is a DX lens and therefore offers little in the way of future proofing a move to a full frame body and this is indeed true.

The 24-70 may also arguably offer higher IQ? I can't vouch for this but as it boasts the very best of what nikkor is able to offer today, it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

They're both fantastic lenses. At the end of the day it's about what works best for you.

Bluethunder said:

I think both are 2.8 and about the same cost.

Click to expand...

Yes, they're both f/2.8 but the 24-70 is significantly more expensive. Also, it's very hard to find the 24-70 right now. Not one of the "good" stores has any.

They're both great choices; I think it mainly comes down to whether you really want the extra length on the 24-70 or the wide angle on the 17-55. After a prolonged debate with myself, I'm going with the 24-70 when I can find one.

You should also be aware that the 17-55 is DX only whereas the 24-70 will also work on full frame body. If you have aspirations for full frame down the road, the 24-70 is probably a better investment.

large and heavy, compared to the 18-200. If you want a walkaround lens, you should consider this. You might look at the 16-85 if the slower aperture does not put you off (5.6 at 50mm). Another thing might be to rent the 17-55 and see how you like it.

But on DX body I need at least 17mm for large buildings and architecture, as a general walk about lens.

I would love the 24-70 though and use it for portraits if I had one.

as a walk about lens, got to be the 17-55...........

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30649408@N00/
Regards, FletchUK.

I think it comes down to two things, well, three if you count budget.

1) How wide do you want to go?
2) Is FX in your future?

I have a Tokina 12-24 (will probably grab their 11-16 2.8 when it's available) that covers the wide for me so I didn't even look at the 17-55. I went straight for the 24-70 and have no regrets. It's a big lens but it stays on my D300 about 80% of the time. Very versatile, great IQ, super fast, just a great lens. (and damn well should be since it costs more than the D300!!)

Honestly, I don't think you'll be dissapointed with either - just make sure you are buying the right lens for its intended use.
--
-Ken
Nikon D300

For me the 24-70 f/2.8 is a better choice. I shoot models most of the time, so having a slightly longer focal length means better subject isolation, and therefore better portraits. I have the 17.55 DX and do fine with it, however.

Buy the 17-55mm.. it's a GREAT lens

So is the 24-70.. but do you use a FX camera now? if not, why buy a FX lens?
yes there are talk about "future proof"..
1. WHEN is that future going to come?
2. Are u ever going to spend 5K on a camera body? (even 5 years down the road?)

3. 3-5 years down the road, when they have a more affordable pro-sumer FX camera, u can still sell ur 17-55.. and buy the THEN hot new FX lens (tho it may still be the 24-70.. but u can buy it then..)

The 24-70 is a great piece of glass. but
1. it's 30-40% more expensive
2. it's bigger and heavier

Why buy something bigger, heavier, and more expensive when u have absolutely no use for it right now.. just to future proof for 5 years from now?

For the 300 bucks u'd lose by selling you 17-55 in a few years, you'd easily make back already if u invested the 500 dollar difference between the two lens now in a good stock
Plus u carry less weight for the next 3-5 years until u go to FX

Only buy the 24-70 if u that's the exact focal range u want.. otherwise, get the 17-55, and worry about "future" when future comes.

Agreed! This is why I decided to pick 17-55 last month!

Both are very good professional grade lenses.

The 17-55 is a DX lens. It is a high quality weather sealed lens with a very versatile focal range on a DX camera.

The 24-70 is the 17-55 for FX. It is optically a better lens than the 17-55 (it is after all a 5 years newer design). It is larger and heavier than the 17-55.

Most users will find the range of the 17-55 more versatile for general shooting than that of the 24-70 on a DX camera. One exception could be photographers that mainly do portrait work.

I have the 17-55 like it very much and would not change it for a 24-70 as long as I shoot with a DX camera. But that is just me. Only you can decide for yourself.

--
Kind regards
Kaj
http://www.pbase.com/kaj_e
WSSA member

This comparison has been discussed a lot lately and I've posted several times on it myself over the last few weeks. Search my threads and also search this and the forum and you’ll find a lot discussion.

A few notes though:

• The new 16-85 is NOT in the same class with the 24-70.

• While the 17-55 is a great lens, the 24-70 has better IQ. Less light fall-off, almost no distortion, excellent color, etc.

• The 24-70 is not so much heavier (900 grams) than the 17-55 (755 grams) that it should keep you from buying one. If you’re willing to carry the 17-55, then you’ll not worry at all about the 24-70.

• The argument of a D300 sized FX body appears, by most estimates, to be likely in the next couple of years. I look at glass as an investment and I hate buying the same thing twice. Simply, a DX lens will not function at all or may function in some handicapped capacity on an FX body. (ala D3) But and FX lens will work on your DX body now and even better on an FX body later.

IMHO, buy the 24-70 and you’ll not be having this discussion again for many years.

I love mine. It’s stunning and without peer. It’s on the D300 about 60% of the time. The other 40% is split between the 14-24 and 70-200.

Oh yeah, not sure where you are, but my dealer in MA (USA) has a few in stock if you are having a hard time finding one. Being hard to find should be telling of it’s quality.

--
Bob

“... I don't think that I'm better than you but I don't think that I'm worse...”
“...We barely have time to react in this world let alone rehearse...”
Ani DiFranco

"in a couple of years"

in a couple of years, i'll sell my 17-55, and buy the hottest new FX lens at that time..

maybe it's still the 24-70,but maybe something new is out. even if it's the same, it's likely easier to find, and may even have dropped in price.. maybe not.. but assume ALL is equal

in the 2-3 years until i go there
1. i invest 500 bucks less upfront.
2. 500 bucks invested in a good stock = 800 -1000 bucks in 3 years
the difference more than what i lose from selling my 17-55mm
3. in the mean time, i carry something lighter, and smaller.

less light fall off, better color, less distortion.. perhaps, but also sample variation issues. the 17-55mm isn't a must have for wedding photographers b/c it's got bad color, or light fall off

again, the 24-70 is a SUPERB lens.. but at the current cost, the lack of the wider angle versatility, the added weight, plus the 2-3 year horizon for FX upgrade, i think the 17-55 is the better choice EXCEPT if u want exactly the 24-70 range

amfoto said:

"in a couple of years"

in a couple of years, i'll sell my 17-55, and buy the hottest new FX
lens at that time..

Click to expand...

Yikes, I think there are more of us who view good glass as a long term investment. There are folks around here taking great pics on DSLR's with really ancient MF lenses!

i agree it is a long term investment, thus see my very next sentence was (it may still be the 24-70).

selective reading

amfoto and I have a different perspective. I appreciate his point of view.

I look upon my lens collection as a long-term investment. I know I have great glass that will take me into the next decade and far beyond. I will probably follow the evolutionary progression of DXXX bodies though. (Every 2 or 3 years if the current trend is sustained.) To consider an extra expense or maybe even being stuck with a legacy lens whose market value has dropped precipitously due to some newly released lens (Unlikely but it has happened) may be something that I'll have to deal with. But I know I can live with what I have now for a very very long time and any IQ issues are now completely behind the camera.

If you are looking to save $$$ now, then the 17-55 is far from a bad purchase. It's a stunner and until the 24-70 came along, it was king of this range. There are a lot of things to consider and most if not all of them have been offered in this and other threads.

Neither lens is a bad choice.

Oh yeah, not entirely on point and not reasonably posited per the OP’s question, but I dealt with the missing wide angle by purchasing the 14-24. So, that problem went away. Albeit for $1600.

--
Bob

“... I don't think that I'm better than you but I don't think that I'm worse...”
“...We barely have time to react in this world let alone rehearse...”
Ani DiFranco

Thank you all for your help. I was leaning toward the 24-70 but now I guess I will have to really think if I need the extra wide 17 or can I use the 24. I hate changeing lenses. Icarried the 70-300 around Disney for 3 days and after a few hours it felt like I was carrying a 30lb weight.

I recently had to make this decision myself. I first ordered the 17-55mm and used it for a while before finding out I'd rather have the extra mm on the long end. Someday I'll probably supplement my lens collection with the 14-24mm for wide angle.

To clarify

u carried the 70-300 for a while and felt u were carrying a 30lb weight?
u the 70-200??

the 70-300 is a light weight zoom at 1.6lbs.. i think the 17-55 is the same, and the 24-70 is at 2lbs...

the 70-200/2.8 on the other hand is quite heavy at 3.2lbs..
(double that of the 70-300mm)

They actually don't cover the same focal length. Also, the 17-55 is about $ 1200, while the 24-70 is about $ 1700.00

Personally I've had to come to realize that the 17-55 is not really my focal length. I should have bought the 28-70 from the beginning. Now I either buy a 35-70 or I have to buy the 24-70 & sell the 17-55

It all comes down to what you need & want to shoot

Lil
--

The beginning of a gallery, showing my progression with help from caring friends especially on DPR, can be visited by friends & family at

http://lilknytt.zenfolio.com/

What I don't get in threads where these and similar lenses are compared is the argument that because the 24-70 is designed for FX, that would make it a less good choice for a DX body. Before the D3 came along, all Nikon DLSR photographers were shooting DX, quite a few of us with the 70-200. Did you ever hear someone claim that the 70-200 is a bad choice for a DX body because it was designed for FX? Quite the opposite; lens guru Bjørn Rørslett has his doubts about the 70-200 on FX bodies for certain uses.

The penalty you pay for an FX design (not counting price) is size and weight. In the case of the 17-55 vs. the 24-70, that's 23 mm ( 21%) and 145 g ( 19%). The 24-70 has a smaller diameter, so the difference in total volume is less. Both are shorter that the OP's 70-300, which is also about the same weight as the 17-55. So if he is not put off, in terms of bulk, by that lens, chances are he'll be happy with either of the 2.8's.

In most other respects (light falloff, CA etc.), having an FX design on a DX body would be an advantage. Corner sharpness at 24 mm is probably better with the 17-55, whereas the opposite could be expected at 50 mm (don't have both, so I can't make direct comparisons, but judging IQ from just one copy of each lens wouldn't be very conclusive anyway).

Point is, both are great lenses. One is a brand new design, and should therefore have a slight edge in terms of overall IQ. What I can say from my own experience (and my - second - copy) of the 24-70 is that the contrast of this lens is breathtaking, and at 35 mm/f. 2.8 corner sharpness is all you could wish for. But I'm sure the 17-55 wouldn't disappoint either. So IMO, it all comes down to your needs and shooting style.

I don't often disagree with Bjørn Rørslett (and I'm in no way in his league), but his often quoted answer about "the most versatile (I think it was) Nikon lens" being "17-55 on a DX body and 24-70 on an FX body" may be true for his style, but it's certainly not true for everyone.

I shoot a D200 and a D300, and I made my choice based on analyzing a great number of 18-70 shots. I found that I used it a lot more at the long end than at the short. I really wasn't aware of how much more until I looked at the statistics. So for me, the choice was easy. For the rare times when I need to go wider than 24 mm, I got the Sigma 10-20.

So what I would suggest to the OP, and to others in his situation, is to (if you can) make the same type of analysis of what FL's you actually use the most, and let that decide (provided the price difference is not a deal breaker). Minor differences in size, weight and IQ should be less important factors, since both lenses should be up to the task for most anyone's needs.

One factor that I rarely see mentioned, but that may influence the choice for some people, is the difference in reproduction ratio. None of these lenses have true macro capability, but the 24-70 will go to 1:3.7, making it useful for e.g. flower close-ups for when you don't have, or carry, a macro lens. The corresponding figure for the 17-55 is 1:5.

Grelber