Final Lens Choice

AlexColeman · Feb 14, 2009

I am going to replace my 16-85 zoom with something alittle better. I am looking at 17-55, 24-70, and any third party zoom. I might be upgrading to FF in a year or two. Any comments or help with me making a decision?

AlexColeman · Feb 14, 2009

36 views and no comments on any of these lenses?

vabikeguy · Feb 15, 2009

Maybe people thought your post was more of a statement as opposed to a request for advice?

AlexColeman · Feb 15, 2009

Nope, I intended it as a request for comments on these lenses in order to help me make an easier decision.

Tighearnach · Feb 15, 2009

Hi

I think you need to decide on whether or not you will go FF. That will answer which lens you should get. Both are supposed to be excellent. If you can't decide that might warrant buying the cheaper 3rd party lens. I have the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 and think it's excellent. Tamrons is supposed to be of very high quality too.

LiveWave · Feb 15, 2009

If you plan to go FF, then go with the 24-70, however if you do go that route, just keep in mind your 24 will be more like a 36. Though 17-55 will still probably resell fine since DX and crop sensors will probably not be going out anytime soon.

AlexColeman · Feb 15, 2009

Can you clarify your statement? If I go FF, won't it just be 24? The question I guess I am asking is whther to go with 24-70 or 17-55 and why.I know the 24 isn't wide, but is it ok?

blash · Feb 16, 2009

24 is pretty wide on a full-frame.

Consider primes (zoom with your feet), which have much better image quality and simplify the art when actually taking photographs (i.e. you don't spend time zooming in and out trying to compose correctly, you just know what the view angle is going to be and you take your pictures based on that).

AlexColeman · Feb 16, 2009

Yeah, but that guy says the field of view will be like 36 on FF, which isn't correct. So, is the 24-70 a good choice?

ANDS! · Feb 16, 2009

AlexColeman said:
Yeah, but that guy says the field of view will be like 36 on FF, which isn't correct. So, is the 24-70 a good choice?

The 24-70 - Nikkor? Much better choices (that will still offer full frame support) than that pro piece of glass. If you absolutely MUST have the best, by all means go for it - but sheesh, are you going to be doing any pro work with this?

As for the 24/36 - he means on the D300. But such comparisons are meaningless if a person has never seen 24 or 26 on a full frame or 35MM film camera.

AlexColeman · Feb 17, 2009

Yeah, but I got a substantial amount to put to lenses, so why not get the best as an investment?
Other than that, it will be the best choice?

ANDS! · Feb 17, 2009

AlexColeman said:
Yeah, but I got a substantial amount to put to lenses, so why not get the best as an investment?
Other than that, it will be the best choice?

An investment in what? Lenses aren't like camera bodies in that you can be justified in paying for the premium bodies and get the premium utility out of it. The lens is either good or it aint. The 24-70 F/2.8 Nikkor is good, but its not 1000 dollar good. Is it worth (construction wise) 1000 bucks. Maybe. Some will say "well I like a sturdy well built lens" - at the end of the day if you drop any lens you're pretty much f'd. So then the question becomes - why do I REALLY want the higher priced lens. They are rated very well - but that does not mean the 3rd party lenses arent.

For example, you might have the 24-70 F/2.8 from Sigma rated at 8.6 or so on Fred Miranda, and the Nikon equivalent rated at 9.4. So, you've got the 1700 for the Nikon, compared to the 300 bucks for the Sigma. Essentially having you forking out 1400 dollars for 0.8 bit of quality difference. A lens that will still be forced into DX mode on a full frame camera (same with the slightly less ridiculous but still priced 18-55).

So. Long story short. Its your money - spend on it what you will. But! Take a very long inventory of the reasons behind these decisions and whether you are buying into the hype, or really REALLY find your shots "suffering" under the constraints of lesser (read: cheaper) lenses.

AlexColeman · Feb 18, 2009

I definitely dont think I am suffering constraints. I have money to burn, so why not buy the best? All I am asking is whether this is the best glass I can get for nikon in the range. Thanks anyway.

Mitch1640 · Feb 19, 2009

ill take that 16-85 off your if the price is right.

dhilberg · Feb 19, 2009

AlexColeman said:
I am going to replace my 16-85 zoom with something alittle better. I am looking at 17-55, 24-70, and any third party zoom. I might be upgrading to FF in a year or two. Any comments or help with me making a decision?

Well if you're looking to upgrade to FX in the near future, the 17-55 f/2.8 would be a waste of money as it's a DX lens.

I'd be looking at the 17-35 f/2.8 as it's an FX lens. The 24-70 f/2.8 is a great lens for FX, but if it were me I'd forget about it and use my 50mm f/1.4 and zoom with my feet.

Unless you just want to collect lenses...