Nikon 17-35 vs 24-70

Discussion in 'Photography Equipment & Products' started by Hooligan Dan, Jul 24, 2010.

  1. Hooligan Dan

    Hooligan Dan No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2008
    Messages:
    536
    Likes Received:
    85
    Location:
    Lodi, CA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Next month I'll be ordering a D3s which means I need to buy a new wide angle too.

    I've been shooting with the 17-55 on my D300 and I love it, but I do wish it was a little wider.

    My choices are down to these two lenses. Since the 17-55 is really more like 24/25 on the wide end(on the D300) the 24-70 makes the most sense as that is basically the range I've been shooting for a long time. But when I pop that 24 on my D300 then I'm really losing the wide end. On the other hand I like the idea of the 17-35 because of how wide it is(and will still be wide on the D300). But the older 17-35 probably doesn't have the IQ and as fast of focus the 24-70 does.

    Keep in mind I am a photojournalist so a lot of my time is spent up close to people shooting wide and shooting in tight areas. I'll be using both bodies and it would be nice to switch my wide and 70-200 between cameras without losing too much range. Another point for the 17-35 I guess.

    Anyway, what are your experiences with the lenses if you have any?
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2010
  2. Josh220

    Josh220 No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,730
    Likes Received:
    83
    Location:
    California
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Have you considered the 16-35? It's much sharper than the 17-35 and it's even a bit sharper than the 24-70 (which I own).
     
  3. Hooligan Dan

    Hooligan Dan No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2008
    Messages:
    536
    Likes Received:
    85
    Location:
    Lodi, CA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I'm not really a fan of the 16-35 because of the f/4. I know with the D3s the extra stop isn't needed because of the high iso performance, but I would rather have the 2.8 for the shallower dof.
     
  4. kundalini

    kundalini Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2007
    Messages:
    13,601
    Likes Received:
    1,929
    Location:
    State of Confusion
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Have you considered the 14-24mm f/2.8? It may be too wide for you, but it does perform.


    [​IMG]



    100% crop
    [​IMG]
     
  5. Hooligan Dan

    Hooligan Dan No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2008
    Messages:
    536
    Likes Received:
    85
    Location:
    Lodi, CA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I do love the 14-24 but that gets in the area of being too wide for people. I'd also lose a lot of range between the 14-24 and 70-200(I rarely ever carry more than two lenses at an time).

    I also wouldn't be using the 14-24 to its full potential because I have no eye for landscape photography. :no smile:
     
  6. shaunly

    shaunly TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    575
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    If you already have the 70-200, it doesn't make sense to me to get a 24-70. 17-35, 50mm prime and 70-200 is pretty much all you need.
     
  7. kundalini

    kundalini Been spending a lot of time on here!

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2007
    Messages:
    13,601
    Likes Received:
    1,929
    Location:
    State of Confusion
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    In that case, the 24-70mm + 70-200mm should work fine on a FF sensor like the D3s. I use mine on the D700. But then again, the 24mm may not be wide enough for you, but the perspective difference from a cropped sensor to a FF sensor is quite significant. I've seen a lot of your stuff posted here on TPF and the wide side seems to work for you. Consider renting each lens for a week before dropping coins. (coins :biglaugh: .... now that a joke)
     
  8. Helen B

    Helen B TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Messages:
    3,296
    Likes Received:
    465
    Location:
    Hell's Kitchen, New York
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I agree. Those three lenses, plus the 85 mm f/1.4 are what I carry for documentary work. The 17-35 is my most used lens of the group. It is plenty sharp enough for this kind of work and very flare resistant.

    Best,
    Helen
     
  9. Sw1tchFX

    Sw1tchFX TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    May 3, 2006
    Messages:
    7,500
    Likes Received:
    478
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I'd skip the 17-35. Even though it's got f/2.8, the 16-35 is in fact sharper wide open than the 17-35 at f/4.

    What about the 24mm f/1.4? It's almost glued to my D700 since i got it, truly phenomenal.
     
  10. shaunly

    shaunly TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    575
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    I envy you... :er:
     
  11. Hooligan Dan

    Hooligan Dan No longer a newbie, moving up!

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2008
    Messages:
    536
    Likes Received:
    85
    Location:
    Lodi, CA
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    After looking more into it I've decided to cut the 17-35 and consider the 16-35 vs 24-70. Both have there pros and cons.

    16-35


    Pros: Wide, very sharp, VR, will still be wide on my D300
    Cons: F/4 will be slow on the D300, especially if I'm in poor lighting and have to freeze action. Dof won't be as shallow as f/2.8

    24-70

    Pros: Very sharp, equivalent to the 17-55 I have been shooting on my D300 for a long time now. f/2.8
    Cons: Won't be wide at all when on D300.

    After listing that stuff out I'm now leaning towards the 16-35. It will be slow on the D300, but if I really need to stop action in a low-light situation then obviously I just put it on the D3s instead. And if I really want the shallow dof I have my 50 f/1.4 for that.
     
  12. Helen B

    Helen B TPF Noob!

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Messages:
    3,296
    Likes Received:
    465
    Location:
    Hell's Kitchen, New York
    Can others edit my Photos:
    Photos NOT OK to edit
    Does the ability to focus in very low light matter to you? That's one reason to prefer a faster lens over a slower, and it is where the D3 and D3s fail to achieve perfection as cameras for very low light in my opinion, anyway.

    Best,
    Helen
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page
17-35 nikon vs 24-70
,
17-35 or 24-70
,
17-35 vs 24-70
,
24-70mm nikon vs17-35
,
nikkor 24-70 vs 17-35
,
nikon 16-35 vs 24-70
,

nikon 17-35 vs 24-70

,
nikon 24-70 or 17-35
,
nikon 24-70 or nikon 17-35
,
nikon 24-70 vs 17-35