Nikon 17-55 or 24-70 2.8
Discussion
I've been perving over the Nikon "Holy Trinity" for a while now and although I wont be rushing out to buy all 3 at the same time I am wondering about my options for a mid-range zoom. I am shooting with a D7000 and having read a bit, a lot of people suggest that the 17-55 2.8 is better for the DX sensor than the 24-70.
Has anyone else got experience with these lenses?
Has anyone else got experience with these lenses?
I use the 17-55 a lot (on DX) and find it an ideal range. For me the 24-70 wouldn't be wide enough, and it's also bigger and heavier. The 24-70 is really the equivalent of the 17-55 for FX cameras.
So yes, if you have DX and can afford the 17-55 I'd defo recommend it.
NB: The 'holy trinity' as I understand it is for FX: 14-24, 24-70, 70-200.
So yes, if you have DX and can afford the 17-55 I'd defo recommend it.
NB: The 'holy trinity' as I understand it is for FX: 14-24, 24-70, 70-200.
Edited by Simpo Two on Sunday 22 June 20:10
I have wondered about this too.
I already have the 10-24mm and 70-300mm Nikkors, so the 24-70 fits in very nicely but I do wonder if the 17-55 is still the better shout on DX.
So far I've been 'filling the gap' in my lineup with the 35mm f1.8 and I don't really feel like I'm missing anything by not having a standard zoom.
I already have the 10-24mm and 70-300mm Nikkors, so the 24-70 fits in very nicely but I do wonder if the 17-55 is still the better shout on DX.
So far I've been 'filling the gap' in my lineup with the 35mm f1.8 and I don't really feel like I'm missing anything by not having a standard zoom.
RobDickinson said:
The 17-55 is great but Nikon is expensive and lacks vr.
Come along, VR is for girls 
The idea is that with f2.8 and plenty of ISO performance you don't need VR (and this isn't a telephoto - agreed for a slow 70-300 it is very handy)SheriffAds said:
I'm looking second hand and prices are about £450 on average for a nice one.
That surprises me - less than half price? Good lenses are usually firmer than that.Simpo Two said:
RobDickinson said:
The 17-55 is great but Nikon is expensive and lacks vr.
Come along, VR is for girls The idea is that with f2.8 and plenty of ISO performance you don't need VR (and this isn't a telephoto - agreed for a slow 70-300 it is very handy)SheriffAds said:
I'm looking second hand and prices are about £450 on average for a nice one.
That surprises me - less than half price? Good lenses are usually firmer than that.As for the price, what happens when the competition have a better lens for less money. The Nikon was always over priced
RobDickinson said:
Vr/is is always useful, if you can knock off 3 stops of iso or stop down when you want too...
Not always. I find that on a wide or normal lens subject motion usually becomes a problem before camera shake - it very much depends what you are shooting.That being said there is no downside to having it, it is always useful to have more options!
SheriffAds said:
I just watched a few end on eBay - between £460, 470... in the shops the second hand ones are more like £600. Still quite a lot off from new but see what you are saying
I've got a Nikkor 17-55mm F2.8 that I've barely used since I got a D700 body. I've been thinking vaguely of selling it or trading it in for a 16-35mm F4. PM me if this might be of any interest.Hope this doesn't break any forum rules!
Totally depends on your shooting style and I would say what your future plans are. If you are thinking about going FX in the future and/or your style is not to shoot a lot of wide angles then the 24-70 might be best.
I have a D7000 and went 24-70 as a lot of what I shoot is my kids and it's a great length for portrait's.
I have a D7000 and went 24-70 as a lot of what I shoot is my kids and it's a great length for portrait's.
SheriffAds said:
Many thanks for your replies - it seems that the 17-55 is the way to go. I'm looking second hand and prices are about £450 on average for a nice one.
I also have a Sigma 10-20 and a Nikkor 70-300 VR2 so I'm thinking that this will definitely compliment my other lenses.
Mmm, I haven't tried the 17-55. However, the 24-70 is a stunning lens. Not just "really good", this lens is in another world of quality. On DX it is very good for portraits where the 17-55 may run out of reach. I also have a Sigma 10-20 and a Nikkor 70-300 VR2 so I'm thinking that this will definitely compliment my other lenses.
Forget about comparing it to your 10-20 (I have it) or 70-300 (seen it), is 24-70 is in another league.
I've recently traded in a Nikon 16-85 as I found the variable aperture fairly annoying, and the 85 was just too short for anything useful.
I was eyeing up the Nikon 17-55 as a possible replacement but I ended up buying a Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-VC second hand from the TP classifieds for £160 delivered as a bit of a punt. It's a bit soft at 2.8 but from 3.2 upwards using my D7000 I'm really impressed by the quality of the images I'm getting out of it. Might be worth considering as an alternative?
I was eyeing up the Nikon 17-55 as a possible replacement but I ended up buying a Tamron 17-50 2.8 non-VC second hand from the TP classifieds for £160 delivered as a bit of a punt. It's a bit soft at 2.8 but from 3.2 upwards using my D7000 I'm really impressed by the quality of the images I'm getting out of it. Might be worth considering as an alternative?
creampuff said:
Mmm, I haven't tried the 17-55. However, the 24-70 is a stunning lens. Not just "really good", this lens is in another world of quality. On DX it is very good for portraits where the 17-55 may run out of reach.
The real-world difference between 17 and 24, and 55 and 70, is much greater. You can often get a bit closer, but not significantly further away. For interiors and tight spaces there's a major difference bewteen 24mm and 17mm. As said, it depends what you want to do.Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff