sleist
Been spending a lot of time on here!
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2009
- Messages
- 3,858
- Reaction score
- 2,352
- Location
- Somewhere in Florida
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos NOT OK to edit
The 17-55mm f/2.8 is the DX version the 24-70mm f/2.8. I'm not sure why you are comparing the 14-24 and the 24-70. Doesn't make any sense to me.
I chose the 17-55 over the 24-70 because I could not live without the wide end. 24 is not wide enough on DX, though there are those that disagree.
The 17-55 goes for around $1000 used.
My personal feeling is that the 14-24 is wasted on a DX body. My DX f/2.8 kit is the Tokina 11-16, Nikon 17-55, and 70-200 VR1 - I use the Tokina less since getting the 17-55, but there are times when I like to go to 11mm.
I just bought a D700, but rather than get rid of the 17-55, I will own a DX and an FX body from now on. When the D400 (or whatever it will be) is released, I will use the 17-55 and/or 70-200 on it and be a happy 2 body shooter. Now all I need to do is sell the Tokina (and a few other things) and buy the 17-35.
I chose the 17-55 over the 24-70 because I could not live without the wide end. 24 is not wide enough on DX, though there are those that disagree.
The 17-55 goes for around $1000 used.
My personal feeling is that the 14-24 is wasted on a DX body. My DX f/2.8 kit is the Tokina 11-16, Nikon 17-55, and 70-200 VR1 - I use the Tokina less since getting the 17-55, but there are times when I like to go to 11mm.
I just bought a D700, but rather than get rid of the 17-55, I will own a DX and an FX body from now on. When the D400 (or whatever it will be) is released, I will use the 17-55 and/or 70-200 on it and be a happy 2 body shooter. Now all I need to do is sell the Tokina (and a few other things) and buy the 17-35.
