DX users.... 17-55 2.8 or 24-70 2.8?

[2WheelPhoto]

I understand what you mean, but he's comparing DX and FF and lenses that are made for those respective cameras. All you're really doing with a comment like that is making things more complicated IMO since this whole thread was about FOV. 50mm on a dx would be useless if it doesn't go as wide as the buyer wanted, no matter the characteristics for instance.

You're right no worries =)

 

[bhop]

*high five

 

[eric-holmes]

Ok, back on track. But then the more I think about it, all of you FF guys do just fine with your 24-70's which would be like me having a 17-55. And, it would save me close to $400.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Ok, back on track. But then the more I think about it, all of you FF guys do just fine with your 24-70's which would be like me having a 17-55. And, it would save me close to $400.

Again, full frame or not, the lens behaves the same at exactly 50mm. If you are shooting portraits as you suggested mostly, you want to be 50 and above, no matter if the sensor in the back is a FF or crop =)

With my D7000 I used the 70mm long end 99.9% more than the 24mm end for that reason alone.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Adorama has an interesting write up on focal length. Again no matter what sensor you use, a lens still has same characteristics. For portraiture as you suggested note "the wider the lens, the bigger the nose":

Your lens’s focal length has an effect on the quality of the portraits you take. If it’s shorter than 70mm you risk subtle (or not so subtle) distortion of facial features (the wider the lens, the bigger the nose) and too much information in the background. If it’s longer than 135mm, visual compression can make your subjects appear flat. So, anything in the 70-135mm range is good. The 80-105mm range is even better, and will show your subject more naturally. Top Portrait Lenses from Adorama Learning Center

I will agree the rules can be broken, of course but thats the deal above. For the skinny models in the pro studios I've been fortunate to visit around Tampa, the 50mm prime is common. But I was warned not to go any lower than 50mm for portraits.

 

[xyphoto]

Sounds like you already made up your mind. But you still want to see what other people would suggest. I think 17-55 will meet your needs if you are going full frame in the near future. However, your mind may change when D800 comes out.

 

[newb]

I love my 17-55 on my D7000. Most of the time, Im on the short end though.

What were your reasons for selling the 70-200? Were you constantly jammed at 70mm?

 

[Markw]

Well, I shoot with a D300s. I bought the 24-70 from the 18-50/2.8 (probably going with the D800 shortly). With the 18-50/2.8, it was plenty wide, but was too short for my liking. With the 24-70, it doesn't go wide enough for my liking, but does go out to 70mm. Which, I've found, I still wish it could go a bit longer. That being said, I dont think they currently make an 18-105/2.8. So, I'll have to deal.

On DX, if you can't see yourself going FX anytime in the foreseeable future, I'd stick with the 17-55. If you think you'll be going FX within..id say..1.5-2 years, I'd just go with the 24-70 and learn to deal. Or, like said previously, go with the 24-70 and 14-24. ORRRRR 17-35 (FX) Nikon and 50/1.4 Sigma. Just a thought.

Mark

EDIT: I wish they made a 16-85/2.8 VRII. That'd be perfect. But I could imagine the size, weight, and priceeee.

Mark

 

[eric-holmes]

I love my 17-55 on my D7000. Most of the time, Im on the short end though.What were your reasons for selling the 70-200? Were you constantly jammed at 70mm?

It was the shear size of the lens along with it being such a huge chunk of money sitting in my bag. I used to use it a lot more for portraits but ever since ingot my 85 1.4 I haven't hardly used it.

 

[mjhoward]

"going full frame" - all the cool kids are doing it. 17-55 provides a similar FOV on a crop body as the 24-70 on a FF. If it were me, I'd get a used 17-55 and then sell it IF the day came where I 'went full frame'. You won't take much of a hit, if at all, buying used.

50mm is 50mm no matter what "view" we have, but not a similar image. If you're shooting people its best to stay above 50mm unless they are silly skinny and you want them to pudge no matter crop job or not.

when i had my D7000 crop i shot a 24-70 and 90% of the time it was at the longer end. I shoot more people that landscape, and even landscape I like the compression of the longer lens over the distortion

What the hell are you talking about? I never said the focal length changed, that would be silly. I said it provides a similar Field of View. I know Cambridge in Color is a respected site so here you go: Digital Camera Sensor Sizes: How it Influences Your Photography

Excerpt: "Similarly, the focal length multiplier relates the focal length of a lens used on a smaller format to a 35 mm lens producing an equivalent angle of view, and is equal to the crop factor. This means that a 50 mm lens used on a sensor with a 1.6X crop factor would produce the same field of view as a 1.6 x 50 = 80 mm lens on a 35 mm full frame sensor."

I never said anything about the image being similar, DOF, or anything else other than FOV. Pick an argument elsewhere.

 

[mjhoward]

BTW, lens distortion (barrel and pincussion) is VERY easy to fix and should be mostly a non issue. In fact, if you are buying the name brand, most new cameras will correct all distortion in camera as well as your PP software for you.

 

[newb]

I love my 17-55 on my D7000. Most of the time, Im on the short end though.What were your reasons for selling the 70-200? Were you constantly jammed at 70mm?

It was the shear size of the lens along with it being such a huge chunk of money sitting in my bag. I used to use it a lot more for portraits but ever since ingot my 85 1.4 I haven't hardly used it.

Fair enough.

Like I said, with my 17-55 Im usually on the wide end. There have been times when Ive had my 70-200 mounted, and wished I had a little less than 70mm. But, I have never had my 17-55 mounted and wished I had a little more zoom. If that makes any sense at all lol.

 

[mjhoward]

I love my 17-55 on my D7000. Most of the time, Im on the short end though.What were your reasons for selling the 70-200? Were you constantly jammed at 70mm?

It was the shear size of the lens along with it being such a huge chunk of money sitting in my bag. I used to use it a lot more for portraits but ever since ingot my 85 1.4 I haven't hardly used it.

Fair enough.

Like I said, with my 17-55 Im usually on the wide end. There have been times when Ive had my 70-200 mounted, and wished I had a little less than 70mm. But, I have never had my 17-55 mounted and wished I had a little more zoom. If that makes any sense at all lol.

Thats why they created the 50-135
Similar FOV on DX as 70-200 on FX. And yes... thats correct.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

BTW, lens distortion (barrel and pincussion) is VERY easy to fix and should be mostly a non issue. In fact, if you are buying the name brand, most new cameras will correct all distortion in camera as well as your PP software for you.

I think you'll agree software, whether in cam or post wont change the compression/DOF/blowing out the background/bokeh.

No matter how you stack it up, the portrait is better shot with the right gear. Sure we can compensate for this and that to save a dollar or two. We can shoot portraits with the 11-16mm if we want to look at it like that.

 

[mjhoward]

BTW, lens distortion (barrel and pincussion) is VERY easy to fix and should be mostly a non issue. In fact, if you are buying the name brand, most new cameras will correct all distortion in camera as well as your PP software for you.

I think you'll agree software, whether in cam or post wont change the compression/DOF/blowing out the background/bokeh.

No matter how you stack it up, the portrait is better shot with the right gear. Sure we can compensate for this and that to save a dollar or two. We can shoot portraits with the 11-16mm if we want to look at it like that.

You crack me up. You JUST got your D700 less than 3 months ago... get off your high horse. You even tried to make an argument out of something I didn't even say, just so you could tout your new FF experience and how superior it is. There's nothing wrong with shooting a crop body and in some cases it is preferable.