on the fense 17-55 VS 24-70

Foques

I need a suggestion here.

I am usually shooting outdoors, but was asked if I could shoot some events. Looks like, i'll be shooting an orchestra in NY this spring, too.

Currently, I am shooting with d300s, and my current glass is this:
50mm 1.8 Nikon
55-200 nikon
70-300 Nikon
28-70 - tamron


I am thinking of selling the 28-70 in favor to the new replacement lens.
That said, what should I get, in your opinion?

Should it be 17-55 or 24-70?

thank you in advance.

Qarik

Foques wrote:

I need a suggestion here.

I am usually shooting outdoors, but was asked if I could shoot some events. Looks like, i'll be shooting an orchestra in NY this spring, too.

Currently, I am shooting with d300s, and my current glass is this:
50mm 1.8 Nikon
55-200 nikon
70-300 Nikon
28-70 - tamron


I am thinking of selling the 28-70 in favor to the new replacement lens.
That said, what should I get, in your opinion?

Should it be 17-55 or 24-70?

thank you in advance.

If you are planning on full frame in the future..the 24-70mm. If not then the 17-55mm is great lens.

Ekaj

You should buy the lens that will suit you best now, the 17-55. The 24-70 is a poor choice on a crop body. Although, there are options that are just as good but much cheaper from sigma which I would research before buying a nikkor.

Foques

thank you guys.

Ekaj, i'm looking at nikon because the experience I had with my Tamron is not the most.. pleasant thus far.

Foques

amazon has Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di-II LD SP ZL Aspherical (IF) has it for 450....

Now, that Ekaj suggested I look into other brands.. i'm seeing a 50mm 1.4 at the price I can afford too.. CRAP. lol

cab.in.boston

Foques wrote:

amazon has Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR Di-II LD SP ZL Aspherical (IF) has it for 450....

That's what I have, and I like it very much. I have no personal experience testing it against the Nikkor, but all the reviews and tests I've read say that the Tamron compares very well with the Nikkor. It's not as heavy or robust, but the IQ is excellent. I would recommend purchasing from someone like B&H or Adorama, where you can return it if necessary (there is more sample variation than among Nikkors) rather than from Amazon. If you get a bad copy, it may be harder to return/exchange with Amazon. Maybe not, but I know with B&H or Adorama, you have a very good return policy.

Ozzwald

ya, tamron is good for the price, but Nikon seems to be better quality and sharpness...which is expected from the price. I know that the 24-70 is optimized for full frame, but many reviews show its just as sharp on a DX crop body. i think i'd pick up the 24-70 since you do have the option of FF and i think it'll hold more value then the 17-55. i personally like the tighter zoom the 24-70 provides, again its what ever zoom range you desire, both are great lens.

Foques

^^
thank you.
I'm going to give it a go, and we'll see how big of a mistake it will be.

how does one check if lens is bad?

cab.in.boston

Ozzwald wrote:

i think i'd pick up the 24-70 since you do have the option of FF and i think it'll hold more value then the 17-55. i personally like the tighter zoom the 24-70 provides, again its what ever zoom range you desire, both are great lens.

FWIW... last year I emailed Thom Hogan and asked him this exact question. His response to me included:

"...[FONT=Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial]mid-range zooms are the real issue for most people. They think they’re going to move to FX so that complicates things. My usual advice is “ignore FX.” Even if you were going to move to FX, by the time you do, there might be 20 million DX users—the market for used DX lenses is likely to remain active for a long time, so at the point where you went FX you’d just sell the things that aren’t going to do you any good any more and buy what you need for FX."

"[/FONT][FONT=Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial]The 17-55mm is a good lens. A very good lens. But it’s overpriced and overbuilt for what most people need. Optically, the Tamron 17-50mm is just as good, less expensive, and less weight to carry. The 16-85mm is as good, too, but you don’t have the fast aperture."

Again... FWIW.
[/FONT]

Ozzwald

I guess first would be physical, make sure it zooms, af is fast and accurate, VR, M and A switch work.

Then there is image quality where you take a shot at i think f/4 or f/8 cant remember, then you inspect the picture at 100% and check the sharpness.

mercphoto

cab.in.boston wrote:

"The 17-55mm is a good lens. A very good lens. But it’s overpriced and overbuilt for what most people need. Optically, the Tamron 17-50mm is just as good, less expensive, and less weight to carry."

That was good advice about not avoiding crop lenses simply because you might go full-frame in the future. And good advice on Tamron versus the Nikkor equivalent. And its going to boil down to what your needs are. I bought the Canon 24-70/2.8L over the Tamron because at the time I *did* need what the Canon gave me: rocket-fast auto-focus motor, very durable build quality, dust resistance. I was shooting night motocross at the time, and I needed a very fast focusing lens that would handle use and abuse and do fine in a dusty environment.

Foques

thank you all!
just bought the the tamron.

The Mack

Ekaj wrote:

You should buy the lens that will suit you best now, the 17-55. The 24-70 is a poor choice on a crop body. Although, there are options that are just as good but much cheaper from sigma which I would research before buying a nikkor.

I disagree. I don't understand why people think it's a bad choice on DX, I've used it plenty of times and had amazing success from it.

I think too many people get caught up with the FX/DX bull crap. If it was a bad focal length, why did Nikon make a 28-70, aka the beast?

Photometric

The Mack wrote:

I disagree. I don't understand why people think it's a bad choice on DX, I've used it plenty of times and had amazing success from it.

I think too many people get caught up with the FX/DX bull crap. If it was a bad focal length, why did Nikon make a 28-70, aka the beast?

I agree. I'm about to pull the trigger on the Nikkor 24-70 lens just for the things that I know will benefit me for the long run, the dust resistance, the rocket fast focus and when I move to fx, I don't need to buy a new lens.

cab.in.boston

The Mack wrote:

I disagree. I don't understand why people think it's a bad choice on DX, I've used it plenty of times and had amazing success from it.

I think too many people get caught up with the FX/DX bull crap. If it was a bad focal length, why did Nikon make a 28-70, aka the beast?

When I first bought my D90, I got a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8. After just a few days, I returned it, because I wasn't happy with it. It didn't go tele enough to really be a tele or wide enough to really be wide on the DX sensor, IMO. It's just a bit of an offset normal, and that was an awkward range for me. I am very happy with the 17-50, OTOH, because it's wide enough for what I want, and I have a 55-200 for when I want "real" tele. I think the 17-50 is just right for a normal zoom, but I felt limited by the 24-70 range. But that's me, and others have different wants/needs.

Photometric

cab.in.boston wrote:

When I first bought my D90, I got a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8. After just a few days, I returned it, because I wasn't happy with it. It didn't go tele enough to really be a tele or wide enough to really be wide on the DX sensor, IMO. It's just a bit of an offset normal, and that was an awkward range for me. I am very happy with the 17-50, OTOH, because it's wide enough for what I want, and I have a 55-200 for when I want "real" tele. I think the 17-50 is just right for a normal zoom, but I felt limited by the 24-70 range. But that's me, and others have different wants/needs.

Cab,

If I may ask, what were you shooting in the 17-23mm range that made you feel limited?

Ekaj

The Mack wrote:

I disagree. I don't understand why people think it's a bad choice on DX, I've used it plenty of times and had amazing success from it.

I think too many people get caught up with the FX/DX bull crap. If it was a bad focal length, why did Nikon make a 28-70, aka the beast?

I never said it is a bad focal length... for film or FX. Of course the 24-70mm range is great. BUT on DX that range becomes a pedestrian 36-105. And you're stuck at 2.8 max. Really... Who would drop $1600 on a lens that covers that focal range? Its not wide, its not long, and its not fast. And it weighs a ton.

Oh, and I would also venture to guess the AF on the 17-55 is faster than the 24-70.

HelenOster

Message from Helen at Adorama Camera

cab.in.boston wrote:

...... I would recommend purchasing from someone like B&H or Adorama, where you can return it if necessary ......I know with B&H or Adorama, you have a very good return policy.

Thanks so much for the recommendation for Adorama - but don't forget that I'm only an email away if you are ever in need of after-sales advice or support.

cab.in.boston

Photometric wrote:

Cab,

If I may ask, what were you shooting in the 17-23mm range that made you feel limited?

Mostly I felt that it wasn't wide enough for interior shots, plus there were other factors involved as well. I just wasn't comfortable using the lens. It was the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 Macro, and as a noob it just felt awkward to use, as well as I wasn't a huge fan of the range. It was the first zoom I bought, on the recommendation of a photog friend, and for whatever reason, neither my wife nor I were happy with it. If I bought it today, having more experience, I might keep it, but at the time I just was not comfortable with it. I would probably use the long end of it now for portraits, but I still don't think I'd like the wide end. The extra ~20 degrees of diagonal angle at 17mm vs. 24 just feels better to me, for interior as well as landscapes. OTOH, if I was just starting out, and someone gave me $5k to buy a lens kit, I might go with a 10-20, 24-70, and 70-200. But since I'm spending my own money and collecting lenses gradually, I'd rather have a lens that reaches farther into wide (at 17) than the 24-70 does. Eventually I'll add that 10-20 as well.

I think there's a reason that a normal zoom has roughly equal range on each side of the normal length, and so 24-70 is perfect on FX, and 17-50/55 is nice on DX. I'd be quite happy with the FX telezoom range of 70-200, though, since the crop gives you that extra reach. My point was simply to respond to the comment about people getting caught up in FX/DX. I think that the crop factor does make a real difference in how a lens feels. I'm not criticizing anyone who uses and likes the 24-70 range, and I've heard that the Nikkor lens is fantastic. The range just wasn't right for me at the time.

The Mack

cab.in.boston wrote:

When I first bought my D90, I got a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8. After just a few days, I returned it, because I wasn't happy with it. It didn't go tele enough to really be a tele or wide enough to really be wide on the DX sensor, IMO. It's just a bit of an offset normal, and that was an awkward range for me. I am very happy with the 17-50, OTOH, because it's wide enough for what I want, and I have a 55-200 for when I want "real" tele. I think the 17-50 is just right for a normal zoom, but I felt limited by the 24-70 range. But that's me, and others have different wants/needs.

To each his own. Try the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 and tell me if you'd return it. I doubt it. Hard to see how you could feel limited by a 24-70 range, do your feet work?

The Mack

cab.in.boston wrote:

Mostly I felt that it wasn't wide enough for interior shots, plus there were other factors involved as well. I just wasn't comfortable using the lens. It was the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 Macro, and as a noob it just felt awkward to use, as well as I wasn't a huge fan of the range. It was the first zoom I bought, on the recommendation of a photog friend, and for whatever reason, neither my wife nor I were happy with it. If I bought it today, having more experience, I might keep it, but at the time I just was not comfortable with it. I would probably use the long end of it now for portraits, but I still don't think I'd like the wide end. The extra ~20 degrees of diagonal angle at 17mm vs. 24 just feels better to me, for interior as well as landscapes. OTOH, if I was just starting out, and someone gave me $5k to buy a lens kit, I might go with a 10-20, 24-70, and 70-200. But since I'm spending my own money and collecting lenses gradually, I'd rather have a lens that reaches farther into wide (at 17) than the 24-70 does. Eventually I'll add that 10-20 as well.

I think there's a reason that a normal zoom has roughly equal range on each side of the normal length, and so 24-70 is perfect on FX, and 17-50/55 is nice on DX. I'd be quite happy with the FX telezoom range of 70-200, though, since the crop gives you that extra reach. My point was simply to respond to the comment about people getting caught up in FX/DX. I think that the crop factor does make a real difference in how a lens feels. I'm not criticizing anyone who uses and likes the 24-70 range, and I've heard that the Nikkor lens is fantastic. The range just wasn't right for me at the time.

Well duh, 24-70 is a portrait lens, not a interior lens.

cab.in.boston

The Mack wrote:

Well duh, 24-70 is a portrait lens, not a interior lens.

On FX or 35mm film, 24-70 is a normal zoom. It's useful at 24 for interiors or getting into wide angle. Just like 17-50 is on DX. I don't consider my 17-50 a portrait lens. It's a normal zoom on DX.

Dedalus77

You might also consider the 18-55 kit lens. While not as fast as the 17-55, it is a great value. You'll probably find it comparable to the 70-300 you've already got. The 24- is not going to give you the best range on a digital camera, so either way, I'd say the 17-55.

Foques

i love the 18-55. One of my fave lenses. Not fast enough, though.

Photometric

Foques wrote:

^^
thank you.
I'm going to give it a go, and we'll see how big of a mistake it will be.

how does one check if lens is bad?

If you're in the store looking at samples, shoot at max aperture and somewhere that is bright enough but busy enough so you can see detail in every corner. Compare the lens's results with the same settings/shot. Repeat around f8.

If you're outside, you shoot again at max aperture with distance and inspect the corners. Repeat around f8 as well.

Each lens is soft at the max, so you're looking for the least soft lens at max aperture. Then you shoot at the average sweet spot f8 to make sure it performs at a "normal" setting. You should see minimal softness at f8 - f11.

Foques

cool. thank you. will try that.

Foques

well, I got my lens.
So far I am loving it.. It makes a weird noise when adjusts the focus, but i'm sure its just the cheaper motor.

result:

Photometric

Foques,

Which lens did you get? Nice capture, btw.

I got the 24-70mm f2.8 yesterday...

Foques

I ended up getting a 17-50