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

[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.

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.

My D700 is really no big deal to me, but the 24-70 and 70-200 is.

I'm looking forward to a D700S or D800 or whatever is coming down the line truthfully. And I still enjoy my old boat anchor D80.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

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.

My D700 is really no big deal to me, but the 24-70 and 70-200 is.

I'm looking forward to a D700S or D800 or whatever is coming down the line truthfully. And I still enjoy my old boat anchor D80.

Have to say 2wheel, I am agreeing with your view of FX in certain respects. I am beginning to be frustrated with the compromise of using DX, I really like the idea of using my lenses how they were meant to be used when built. But I know DX has some advantages by that same token. I am wondering whether I might consider a D700 when the price drops.

 

[eric-holmes]

Thanks for everyones input.

 

[bhop]

I don't see what's so frustrating about DX. Just think of your lenses as whatever FOV that the crop sensor converts it to instead of what it actually is supposed to be and you're good. If I want to shoot at around 24mm FOV, i'll shoot with at 17mm on my dx, 300mm? Use the 200, etc.. I don't see it as a compromise, more of a mental adjustment. If it really bugs you so much, then save up for an FX body.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

I don't see what's so frustrating about DX. Just think of your lenses as whatever FOV that the crop sensor converts it to instead of what it actually is supposed to be and you're good. If I want to shoot at around 24mm FOV, i'll shoot with at 17mm on my dx, 300mm? Use the 200, etc.. I don't see it as a compromise, more of a mental adjustment. If it really bugs you so much, then save up for an FX body.

I am making a very VALID point that I would like the chance to use a prime lens the way they were built to be used, I like the added bonus of extra depth of field control etc.. my point was that I like the idea of using one of Nikon's specialist primes and watching it come to life on an FX body. That was the point I was making! You seem to have misread my post somewhere along the lines?

 

[2WheelPhoto]

+1. Josh many still think its about "field of view". If thats all it was about I'd have never wanted FF I'd have just continued to back up a little bit =)

 

[bhop]

I don't see what's so frustrating about DX. Just think of your lenses as whatever FOV that the crop sensor converts it to instead of what it actually is supposed to be and you're good. If I want to shoot at around 24mm FOV, i'll shoot with at 17mm on my dx, 300mm? Use the 200, etc.. I don't see it as a compromise, more of a mental adjustment. If it really bugs you so much, then save up for an FX body.

I am making a very VALID point that I would like the chance to use a prime lens the way they were built to be used, I like the added bonus of extra depth of field control etc.. my point was that I like the idea of using one of Nikon's specialist primes and watching it come to life on an FX body. That was the point I was making! You seem to have misread my post somewhere along the lines?

Ok.. my point is valid too.. IF IT BUGS YOU SO MUCH, SAVE FOR AN FX BODY

Honestly, I shoot a few of the same lenses on my D200/300 and my F100/F4s. The difference isn't as much as you guys want to believe it is.

 

[cannpope]

I used to have a Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS HSM on my D7000 and it was a perfect pair. It stayed on my camera about 90% of the time. It's a very good lens for much less than the Nikkor 17-55.

 

[eric-holmes]

Drum roll......


I went with the 17-55. I figured if I wanted to go longer and compress the background more, I would just use the 85 1.4. Plus, it saved me about $400.

 

[newb]

You wont regret it!

 

[Markw]

+1

Mark