Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 or 28-70 f/2.8?

[brianhuangbh]

I'm looking for a lens to use every day, and I'm selling my 17-35 f/2.8 right now for something that offers more coverage. I hear great things about both these lenses, but I can't choose. What would you choose? Thanks.

 

[bentcountershaft]

I prefer the 24-70 but with you being used to the 17-35 you may miss the wide end more than I do. That extra 7mm can make a big difference.

 

[PhotoWrangler]

The 17-55 is the DX version of the 24/28-70. To be specific, the 17-55 has the same field of view that a 25-82 has on a full frame body. Essentially they are the same lens, depending on what body you use them on. If you put the 28-70 (which is considered a full frame lens) on a DX body, it will essentially be a 45-105.

 

[Destin]

the 28-70 if you have an FX camera, the 17-55 if your shooting DX.

Although if you plan on going from DX to FX soon (within a year) you may consider the 28-70 because it will work on an FX sensor, the 17-55 won't. If you buy the 17-55 then switch to an FX body, you'll have to sell the lens and get a 24/28-70

 

[PhotoWrangler]

the 28-70 if you have an FX camera, the 17-55 if your shooting DX.

Although if you plan on going from DX to FX soon (within a year) you may consider the 18-70 because it will work on an FX sensor, the 17-55 won't. If you buy the 17-55 then switch to an FX body, you'll have to sell the lens and get a 24/28-70

Yeah... what he said... LOL I think I confused myself on that one!

 

[mrpink]

I love my 17-55 2.8 glass. Got it for a steal before the D7000 came out, since then, the price has really shot up. No plans on going FX in the near future, and if I do, I would keep my D90 and 17-55 as a second shooter.

Taken with the Nikkor 17-55 2.8:


DSC_9344ww by Matt Francosky, on Flickr





p!nK

 

[brianhuangbh]

Wait, let me get this straight, a 17-55 f/2.8 is a true 17-55mm on a DX body? The 1.5x crop factor doesn't apply?
So, on my D7000, a the 17-55mm gives me 17-55 coverage, while the 28-70 gives me approximately 42-105mm coverage?
Does this also mean that I shouldn't go for the newer 24-70 f/2.8 that everyone is raving about?

 

[PhotoWrangler]

Wait, let me get this straight, a 17-55 f/2.8 is a true 17-55mm on a DX body? The 1.5x crop factor doesn't apply?
So, on my D7000, a the 17-55mm gives me 17-55 coverage, while the 28-70 gives me approximately 42-105mm coverage?
Does this also mean that I shouldn't go for the newer 24-70 f/2.8 that everyone is raving about?

No. The 17-55 on a DX body has the same field of view as a 24-70 does on a full frame body. To get a true 17mm view on a DX body you need a 10mm-12mm lens..... *I think.*


I always remember it buy multiplying each number by 1.5 to give me the full frame equivalent. 17 x 1.5 = 25.5mm

 

[cnutco]

I do not use my 17 - 55 as much as I do my 24 - 70, but when I do I am glad I have it in my bag of tricks!

Keep your 17 - 35 and get the 24 - 70!

 

[xjoewhitex]

It just all depends on what you plan to use it for. I myself have been in the same debate for about a month now trying to decide which route to go. After this past weekend shooting with a prime 50 and realizing that is much of a zoom, ive decided on the 17-55. Buy the lens which you will get more use of the whole range. 50-70 would be useless to me in the style I shoot so it makes much more sense for the lower option.

 

[mwcfarms]

You can still use your DX lenses on a full frame, you just end up with a crop field of view. At least I can on mine, some of the off brands wont work but if its a Nikon to Nikon or Canon to Canon it should. the 24 - 70 is a full frame lens not a DX lens. So its made for full frame. If you plan on upgrading to FX don't invest in anymore DX lenses it doesnt make sense. Im stuck with two DX lenses that work on my FX but I would rather take that 1000 worth to apply to a new lens.