nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 or 24-70mm f/2.8

[ev1lmagic]

I've been looking into getting the 24-70mm f/2.8 for awhile now and i have heard nothing but good stuff about this lense. however, recently i have been also pondering the idea of going with the 17-55mm for two reasons: (1) it is about $500 cheaper (2) it is a DX format lense, and because i am currently using a D90, i thought it would be better suited for the time being. fyi it offers a larger angle of view for the DX format as apposed to the 24-70 which isn't DX.


i have been and will mainly use this lense to shoot portraits ie for prom (school dances) and events (engagements, weddings, and such).

i was thinking that for the time being, i could reap better benefits from the 17-55mm since it is cheaper plus i get a larger viewing angle. however, i know for a fact that i will be upgrading to a D700 or D3/D3s in the not too distant future so would it be better to just go with the 24-70mm? Is the 79 degree viewing angle vs. the 69 degree viewing angle of the 24-70mm worth getting the 17-55 now, then having to switch to the 24-70mm later on? (ofcourse some money will be lost in the process from selling and buying which is also something i want to put into consideration)

any of your input would be greatly appreciated.



~Owen

 

[joemc]

I have moved to FF...and I might have a mint 17-55 f/2.8 for sale?

I haved mixed emotions about selling it because I do love it?

 

[Big Mike]

From what I've heard, they are both good lenses.
So the question is whether you want to have 17mm or 24mm as your widest (shortest) focal length. (I consider the wide end more important than the long end, on lenses like these).
Personally, I don't like only having 24mm on a crop sensor body...so my vote is for the 17-55mm.

Of course, if you are going to upgrade to full frame, that may not be the best choice. So then you need to ask yourself if it's worth getting the most appropriate lens now, knowing that it will need to be replaced when you upgrade.