nikon 17-55 f2.8 OR 24-70mm f2.8

RONDAL · Mar 11, 2010

i'm shooting a D90 and D300. So crop sensors. I don't think im ever gonna go FF, as i dont really think I need it. I dont do weddings or low light, and i dont really need SUPER wide.

i shoot everything from portrait, to cars, to landscape. I currently have a 10-20mm wide, a 50mm, and a 18-200mm.

I know i need a 70-200mm f2.8 for stuff, and that will be coming down the road. But right now my biggest issue is not having a zoom that is quick and sharp for portraits. The 50mm is good but has its limitations.

Given the 2 choices, what would you guys suggest. The price between them is about $300, the 24-70 being a little more. bviously if i ever went FF the 24-70 would be able to hold. Resale wise they both seem to hold their value pretty well.

Im just slightly torn. I know about the weird focal lengths you get with the crop sensor and the 24-70, but im wondering if its enough of a reason NOT to get that lens.

Your thoughts/comments

bentcountershaft · Mar 12, 2010

Since you already have the 10-20 I don't see a reason not to get the 24-70.

wiredhernandez · Mar 12, 2010

I was facing a similar decision and considering the cost of the lens I opted for 24-70 to assure I could upgrade to FF. 24 is pretty decent on the short end I and just work within the confines of my rig knowing that I will never have to re purchase lenses for a new cam...

swoop_ds · Mar 12, 2010

24-70

Mike_E · Mar 12, 2010

Ditto! 24-70mm! The good numbers for portraits don't even start until 50.

boomer · Mar 12, 2010

I have the Nikon 24-70 on my D90 and love it! just like you, i have a wide angle that covers 12-24, so I had no reason to buy the Nikon 17-55.

You will love it!

TJ K · Mar 12, 2010

The 70-200 to many is probably one of the best all around portrait lenses just to let you know. I would go with the 17-55 if you don't plan on going to FX because it is like a 24-70 with the crop factor. But my first choice would be a 70-200 then the 17-55 if you don't want FX.
TJ

RONDAL · Mar 12, 2010

Mike_E said:
Ditto! 24-70mm! The good numbers for portraits don't even start until 50.

while this is true on FF, when you're using a crop sensor it doesn't hold as much.

i guess the response is all for the 24-70.

KmH · Mar 12, 2010

Mike_E said:
Ditto! 24-70mm! The good numbers for portraits don't even start until 50.

and extend all the way beyond 200 mm.

I would be looking at the AF 80-200 f/2.8 for now myself (about $850 for a good used 2-ring version) and sell the 18-200. I've made it well known I have a low opinion of the image quality of the 18-200mm lens, for the price.

cnutco · Mar 12, 2010

The 24-70 f2.8 is my next lens.

That's my vote.

clockwurk · Mar 12, 2010

24-70 for sure

Vinny · Mar 14, 2010

I was under the impression that the lens should be about 105mm for portraits. In film, a 50 mm lens is about our eyesite looking at the subject. A 105mm lens gets the camera far enough away along with lighting equipment to not crowd the subject and not too big to handle. I don't know if there is a zoom range these days that stops at a middle of the road focal length wise but I would try a higher focal length.

Mike_E · Mar 14, 2010

Hi guys, it's not about the field of view, it's about the subject being flat as it hits the sensor. Do a little test, take a photo of yourself with the widest lens you have and crop out your face so that you have the same field of view as a 75mm lens (a 50 with the crop factor). Then take one of yourself (or the same subject anyway) with an actual 100(ish)mm lens and compare the two photos. It's easier to see with the very wide angle but is still there as you go up. 50mm is about where the image starts to flatten, 85 is where it starts to be good. 300 is great.

OK, it's really about the circle of confusion but I'll leave others to explain that.

Josh220 · Apr 13, 2010

Was a decision ever made?

I have a Nikon 12-24mm so the 24-70 seems to be a better fit. However, 17-55mm lenses seem to be up for sale more often so I could get one for half the price and I don't know if 24mm is wide enough compared to 17mm.

Nikon 70-200mm is somewhere in the future.