17-55/2.8 DX with 24-70/2.8 performance

Well, well... I'm considering an upgrade to my midrange zoom (at the same time, I'm considering dropping the midrange zoom completely - so much about being confused).

I have no plans to go FX in the near future (or even in the far future), and have recently shot in some places where having a fast & well-built lens would have been a real plus. Can't show you the shots as they were entered in a contest that says no-no to any publication online until the competition is over, but believe me, it was not something I should be doing with a 18-135 DX.

So, the 17-55/2.8 DX would be rather tempting (also being available on the used market it may end up being not that expensive). However, seeing that the 24-70/2.8 is better in almost every respect optically, I'm a bit hesitant, to say the least. Wasn't there supposed to be a DX advantage? Higher resolution, sweet spot and the like? Instead, all tests uniformly show that the 24-70/2.8 is sharper in the center and at the borders at almost every focal length at wide apertures.

So, the questions are...

1) Knowing that you could get better performance using the 24-70/2.8, would you buy a 17-55/2.8 DX today (solely for focal length coverage reasons, obviously)? I do have an ultrawide (12-24/4), but there's no denying that the 17-55 range is a very useful one.

2) Is there any possibility of Nikon releasing an upgraded variant of that lens, or maybe a pro-build 16-60/4 AF-S DX, which I would like even better, some time soon?

Thanks for input.

BG

I've used the 17-55 for 3 years and limited use with a friends 24-70 that i've borrowed several times. I feel like i have a good grasp on your decision.

Testing them on a tripod with all settings being equal I notice a slight improvement in sharpness. They seem very close in optical performance when tested for testing sake.

It's once you use them to shoot in everyday normal shooting that optically you begin to notice that the 24-70 is on another level. I think the biggest improvement is contrast and micro-contrast. The 24-70 has an amazing amount of information that it shows the sensor. I'm one of the people that hates UV filters for protecting the front of a lens. The optical difference between the two lenses is that the 24-70 makes the 17-55 seem like it has an additional UV filter on it (when it doesn't). so I feel that the 24-70 is an upgrade optically over the 17-55.

With all that being said. I don't like the 24-70 on a DX camera at all, the focal range is not wide enough. The difference between 17 and 24 is much greater than 55 and 70. The 24-70 is not a good range at all if your going to use this on a DX for PJ or wedding type shooting. Don't know what type of shooting you do but the 24-70 is the wrong range. I'd always choose the 17-55 for my style and the type of events I shoot. If you shoot DX the 17-55 is the one to get. If you shoot FX then your lucky because you get to use an even better lens in the 24-70.

I had a similar problem a few months back when I was upgrading. I was debating between second hand 17-55 vs 28-70. I ended up with 17-55 for several reasons. The zoom range is very useful. I can't imagine myself keeping the 17-55 on my cam 80% of the time if it didn't go as wide as 17mm. fair enough 17 isn't wide wide, but it's enough to get the job done. I don't have a wide angle since i don't shoot in that range too much.

As for the other reason, 17-55 was a lot easier to find at a reasonable price than the 28-70, I'd imagine it's the same with the 24-70 nowadays.

When I got the 17-55, my photo buddy got his 17-40 f/4 canon. How I wish nikon gave me that option, but hey, got to use what's here at the moment. Even if nikon announces a 16-60 f/4 today, you probably won't have it in hand until mid next year when there's enough stock and all the reviews are out.

Go with the 17-55.
--
-Bo
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bo_z/

Here is another vote for the 17-55.

The thing is, buy it new from a store with a solid return policy.

I went through 2 not so great ones to find a winner. Lots of people get good ones on the first try, I didn't and I am glad I got it from a camera store that let me exchange it for another copy.

That being said, the 17-55 is my most used lens. I sold off my Nikon 28-70 f2.8 because I just didnt use it anymore.

I shoot with a D2x and my backup is a D200 (hopefully soon to be a D300) and between the 17-55 and the 70-200 and my trust 50 f/1.4 I can handle just about any assignment that comes my way.

Hope this helps.
-tim

--
http://timothyherzog.com
http://www.flickr.com/proletech/

you can't start a fire worrying about your little world falling apart, this guns for hire,
even if we're just dancing in the dark...

I had the 17-55 for over a year as my main lens but sold it in favour of the 24-70 because I found it too short at the long end.

The 17-55 is a great lens but the 24-70 has even more contrast, probably the Nano coating, and maybe better color rendition. Sharpness is about equal while my 35-70 is a tad sharper in some areas.

The 24-70 suits me better than the 17-55 on DX, it has exactly the right range. Firstly it fits much better between 12-24 and 70-200; I often use two cameras where the main one always has the 24-70 mounted and the other either wide or tele, so I always have a wide range, but the 17-55 doesn't fit well. Secondly it's fantastic for portraits and headshots. I like the 24-70 much better for people than the 17-55. If I go FX I want a 35-105 f/2.8.

Another good reason to get a 24-70 is that it's an FX lens, for if you want to change to FX in the future.

--
Philip

BasilG said:

So, the questions are...

1) Knowing that you could get better performance using the 24-70/2.8,
would you buy a 17-55/2.8 DX today (solely for focal length coverage
reasons, obviously)? I do have an ultrawide (12-24/4), but there's no
denying that the 17-55 range is a very useful one.

Click to expand...

No. I hesitated for two years before getting the 17-55mm because of cost but it is an excellent lens. I have heard, and don't disagree with others, that the 24-70 is on another level but wow, I was very pleased at the 17-55mm's color and contrast. What must the 24-70mm be like? Still I use 17mm, more like 20mm, a lot so I couldn't do 24mm. But I do find me wanting more than 55mm. Ironically, 17-55mm is 26-82 in 35mm parlance which should be plenty but oh how we are always changing.

gk
--
'I'm not as smart today as I will be tomorrow.'

Another vote for the 17-55. It is my most used lens, a perfect walkaround for the things that I shoot. I have no first hand experience with the 24-70, but I speak from a practical consideration. Don't forget the "crop factor." On your DX camera, that 24-70 becomes effectively a 36-105. If that range is where you shoot, then full speed ahead with the 24-70. But if you need a wider angle before you reach the 12-24, then the 24-70 is not for you.
--



http://www.flickr.com/photos/reblue/sets/
http://community.webshots.com/user/REBlue01

I tried to buy the 24-70. Went to the two pro camera shops in town that I trust and both talked me out of the 24-70 and into the 17-55 due to the wide angle. I have the 12-24 and the 70-200 nikons and the 17-55 plugged the hole. I have been very pleased with the results which I would say is comparable to my 50mm 1.4 prime.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=29535092

lamesalegend said:

I'm one of the people that hates UV filters for protecting the front
of a lens. The optical difference between the two lenses is that the
24-70 makes the 17-55 seem like it has an additional UV filter on it
(when it doesn't). so I feel that the 24-70 is an upgrade optically
over the 17-55.

Click to expand...

--
Philip

I used one for a few years and have passed it on to my sister for her d200 (I upgraded to a d700).

I actually found with a rental 24-70 for my d700 that I did not like it as much as the 17-55. Maybe I'll give it another try with what you guys are saying, because I have since moved on to other lenses to cover that area (primes). It may have had a lot to do with the feel/handling. The photos were perfectly fine, but not dramatically different than the 17-55. I think my tastes have changed though. Admittedly, I don't do a lot of (read: any, ever) full crop comparisons of photos from different lenses/cameras.

Anyway, if you are going to stick with DX for the long haul, you should definitely get the 17-55. You get a similar quality lens, with a "better" larger focal range, in a smaller/lighter package. So far, they are keeping their resale value up pretty good. If DX doesn't become mostly deprecated, you can probably get a good chunk of $$ back if you do upgrade to FX in the future (or give it to your sister as a nice gift).

Is there anyway you can try the 24-70 first? My rental place doesn't do DX lenses, so it may be tougher to find the 17-55.

I bought 24-70 for D80 a month ago. I totally agree 17-50 is better range for DX format now. At the same time, I am sure to become FX user in about a year. That was one of two reasons for 24-70. The second one was the better range for portraits that are my favorite. It not really like that. You cant get a very blurred bokeh even at 70 at 2.8. So, if you are sure about your dx future, 17-55 will be better for you. If not, once you buy 24-70, it is forever. No waste of money by switching from cheaper to the best one in the future.

--
You are welcome @ http://kusko.zenfolio.com/

Would you go with a 160mm lens if it was sharper than your 85mm lens? The 17-55 provides a range equivalent to 24-80 on a FF camera. The 24-70 on your camera has the FOV of a 36mm to 105mm which is great for portraits but quite limiting for landscape or indoor photography.

BasilG said:

1) Knowing that you could get better performance using the 24-70/2.8,
would you buy a 17-55/2.8 DX today (solely for focal length coverage
reasons, obviously)? I do have an ultrawide (12-24/4), but there's no
denying that the 17-55 range is a very useful one.

Click to expand...

--The 17-55 was made for the DX format and it's still my favorite lens on my D2x. I have the 24-70 but would miss the short end on the DX format. It's a great walk around lens - very sharp.

William

Are you familiar with Bjorn Rorslett? Bjorn is a very well known nature photographer and lens reviewer. his reviews are very highly regarded and can be found here:

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom.html

Bjorn hangs out on the nikongear.com forums and not too long ago some one there asked the following question:

"I´m planning to buy some new lenses. I have about $1500 have planned to buy two or three lenses. I have a 70-300 VR, but beacuse of an "accident" that it the only one I have left. I like shooting portraits, macros and urban landscapes.

Which mix of lenses to buy would you recommend me to buy?"

this was Bjorn's answer:

"Depends on the camera of course.

For a DX camera, the 17-55/2.8 AFS

For an FX camera, the 24-70/2.8 AFS."

On Nikongear Bjorn goes by the name nfoto, the thread can be found here:

http://nikongear.com/smf/index.php?topic=8780.0

Bjorn's reply is the third one after the original question

So, out of all of the lenses or combinations of lenses possible for $1,500.00 or less Bjorn Rorslett recommends the 17-55 f/2.8 for use on a DX camera over every possibility, including the 24-70

--
Nikon D200 and a 105 f/2D-DC
It's all I need

not that it really matters, but the actual crop factor of Nikon DX DSLR's according to Thom Hogan is 1.54 which would make the 17-55 on DX the equivalent of a 26-85mm lens on FX. Just about the perfect range IMHO

calson said:

Would you go with a 160mm lens if it was sharper than your 85mm lens?
The 17-55 provides a range equivalent to 24-80 on a FF camera. The
24-70 on your camera has the FOV of a 36mm to 105mm which is great
for portraits but quite limiting for landscape or indoor photography.

Click to expand...

--
Nikon D200 and a 105 f/2D-DC
It's all I need

I tend to shoot longer. So even though I have DX camera I decided to go with a demo 28-70. Got a great deal on it. I could have purchased a used 17-55 for almost same amount. Also considered that if eventually I got to FX I could still use it. I rented the 24-70 and my 28-70 compares quite well. It is extremely sharp and great colors.
--
Laslo
http://www.digitalexpressionsphotography.com

--
'I'm not as smart today as I will be tomorrow.'

If you shoot at 17-24mm range much, pick 17-55. Pick whatever that's appropiate for your PRESENT use and your PRESENT camera. Trying to be future proof, you would be dragged into the futrure, or never be happy with the present.

I had a D80 and hestitated on a 17-55 f/2.8 DX for years, always thinking full frame would be out oneday and didn't wanna spend $1200 on DX glass.

I bought the 24-70/2.8 the month it was out. Been switching between the 12-24/4 and 24-70 every 20 shots or so. I primarily shoot wide. The end result is 2 weeks after I lost my 12-24/4 in a trip, I ordered the D700. A big reason is sick of switching. 24-70 just don't work for a wide shooter on a DX.

I love my 24-70 so much that I switched to FX just for using the 24-70 the way it is designed for. Yes, it drove me to the D700. If I had gotten a 17-55, D300 would have been a more economical upgrade.

I think that it largely depends on what your intended uses are for the lens. As you already have a 12-24mm, you do have the wide end covered nicely - so even on DX format these two choices come down to overlap on the wide end compared to higher IQ and cost.

I don't agree with those that say that the 24-70mm on a DX body (yielding 36-105mm 35mm equivalent) is a bad f.l. range. I use to have a Zuiko 35-105mm for my Olympus OM-4T and that was one of my more frequently used lenses. The Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8 offers better IQ and on a DX body would also make for a fine portraiture lens.

--
Imagination4
http://s185.photobucket.com/albums/x243/aragorn0404/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/27349336@N04/

lamesalegend said:

With all that being said. I don't like the 24-70 on a DX camera at
all, the focal range is not wide enough. The difference between 17
and 24 is much greater than 55 and 70. The 24-70 is not a good range
at all if your going to use this on a DX for PJ or wedding type
shooting. Don't know what type of shooting you do but the 24-70 is
the wrong range. I'd always choose the 17-55 for my style and the
type of events I shoot. If you shoot DX the 17-55 is the one to get.
If you shoot FX then your lucky because you get to use an even better
lens in the 24-70.

Click to expand...

I shoot mostly landscapes, travel and macro. For that, swapping between the 12-24 and the 24-70 wouldn't be a problem at all (except in some situations when traveling). However, for that task, I don't really need (and sometimes don't want) an f/2.8 lens - I'd use it also for public events (read: in crowds), where lens changes are more of a problem (and I'm kind of a wide-angle guy anyway - that's why having that 17 mm end on the 17-55/2.8 DX appeals to me much more than the 24 mm of the 24-70/2.8).

Thanks for your thoughts.

BG