nikon 17-55 f2.8 OR 24-70mm f2.8

[Josh220]

The holy trinity is the way to go. I one day aspire to have them all... a boy can dream.

Aside from my wide angle lens being the 12-24 f/4 and not the 14-24 f/2.8, yes it would be.

My concern with the 24-70 is that it is such a good mid-range lens, that I worry it is too perfectly placed within it's focal lengths. Is the 24mm end not wide enough, and is the 70mm end not long enough?

 

[cnutco]

Some people have sadi that the 70 - 200 is good for portrait. Is this lens not too big and heavy for portrait?

I will be taking pictures of my daughter this week for prom. I was planning to use my 50, but I will have my 70 - 200 in my bag.

Should I use the 70 -200 instead of the 50???

 

[mdtusz]

The holy trinity is the way to go. I one day aspire to have them all... a boy can dream.

Aside from my wide angle lens being the 12-24 f/4 and not the 14-24 f/2.8, yes it would be.

My concern with the 24-70 is that it is such a good mid-range lens, that I worry it is too perfectly placed within it's focal lengths. Is the 24mm end not wide enough, and is the 70mm end not long enough?

I know that I didn't see your post above.

 

[Josh220]

Focal length aside, is there a huge difference in image quality between the 17-55 /2.8 and 24-70 /2.8?

I am even debating getting the 70-200 before I get one of these. In which case I don't know if it would make any logical sense whatsoever to get anything other than the 24-70 since I will have 12-24 and 70-200 covered. :er:

 

[fokker]

Is the 24mm end not wide enough, and is the 70mm end not long enough?

When it's all you've got you tend to just make it work - kind of like when using a prime lens.

I use a 17-55 most of the time and I find that more often than not I'm at either extreme of the focal range.

 

[jeff000]

I would be looking at the AF 80-200 f/2.8 for now myself (about $850 for a good used 2-ring version) and sell the 18-200. I've made it well known I have a low opinion of the image quality of the 18-200mm lens, for the price.

I agree, the 18-200 should go, its a great carry all for a tourist. But once you go any high end lens the 18-200 should be retired.
The 80-200 f2.8 is a great lens. If you shoot outside or with strobes anyways then the VR isn't really going to make a difference.
Most of my shooting with the 80-200 is outside and at 1/2000+ shutter, VR doesn't make a difference at that point. If you shoot sports indoors or low light, night then the VR can be nice.

I was under the impression that the lens should be about 105mm for portraits. In film, a 50 mm lens is about our eyesite looking at the subject. A 105mm lens gets the camera far enough away along with lighting equipment to not crowd the subject and not too big to handle. I don't know if there is a zoom range these days that stops at a middle of the road focal length wise but I would try a higher focal length.

The best portrait lens is the lens that gets you the effect you want.
That said most people can't really tell when a shot is taken with my 17-55 f2.8 or my 80-200 f2.8 or the 85 f1.8. When shooting models I am mostly in the f6.3 type range.

Some people have sadi that the 70 - 200 is good for portrait. Is this lens not too big and heavy for portrait?

Should I use the 70 -200 instead of the 50???

You need room for the 70-200, keep that in mind, I use the 80-200 when I am shooting outside and know the location only otherwise I feel handicapped by its space requirements at times.

Focal length aside, is there a huge difference in image quality between the 17-55 /2.8 and 24-70 /2.8?

I am even debating getting the 70-200 before I get one of these. In which case I don't know if it would make any logical sense whatsoever to get anything other than the 24-70 since I will have 12-24 and 70-200 covered. :er:

Not a noticeable difference in quality. The extra 15mm on the long end can be made up by your feet easier then the 7mm on the short end.
I like the 17-55 over the 24-70 for what I shoot, although the 24-70 I only had a chance to play with for a couple days.

 

[dhilberg]

If you're thinking about the Nikon 17-55, but want the best image quality, pass on it and get the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 HSM Macro. It's sharper than the Nikon 17-55, focuses much closer, but is only 1/3 the price of the Nikon. I have the Sigma and it's excellent. The Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 is great also.

If build quality is a concern, then get the Nikon.

 

[Josh220]

I wish I was comfortable buying 3rd party lenses. Quality is never the same, and regardless of reviews I can't see them ever being sharper. Close, perhaps... But never more than.

 

[Formatted]

Why get the 24-70. Get the 50mm its like half the price. And just move backwards and forwards to make it a 24 - 70!

Spend the money on something else like a 18-200!

 

[dhilberg]

I wish I was comfortable buying 3rd party lenses. Quality is never the same, and regardless of reviews I can't see them ever being sharper. Close, perhaps... But never more than.

The reviews speak otherwise about the Sigma. You can ignore those I guess, but that's just silly and starts to sound like blind devotion.

You're safe buying Nikon only (generally), but there are 3rd party gems out there that are excellent, and superior to the OEM counterparts (like the Sigma 18-50). No point in spending $1200 on a lens when you can pick up one that performs better for only $420.

But if you have that kind of money to burn, then by all means...

 

[D-B-J]

Sometimes 3rd party is much better than nikons own. For example, i was looking into all of the nikon wide-angle lenses, and i read many places that for a DX format camera, the one to get is the tokina 11-16mm. IT outperforms nikons 14-24 f4, for DX.

 

[Josh220]

Why get the 24-70. Get the 50mm its like half the price. And just move backwards and forwards to make it a 24 - 70!

Spend the money on something else like a 18-200!

The 18-200 is a good walk-around lens for convenience purposes, but it's not a super sharp lens. I may sell mine after I get the 70-200 and 24-70.

I have been doing a lot of research and watching videos on YouTube that compare the 24-70 to the 17-55 and it's a fairly common conclusion that the 24-70 is noticeably sharper.

The thing I often find with 3rd party lenses is that they will have 40 or 50 reviews that average 4-4.5 stars. A lens like the 24-70 has 400-500 reviews that average 5 stars.

 

[RONDAL]

Why get the 24-70. Get the 50mm its like half the price. And just move backwards and forwards to make it a 24 - 70!

Spend the money on something else like a 18-200!

another gem of wisdom :lmao::lmao:

pass on argueably one of nikons sharpest and best lenses for a lens that is slower and softer.

i have all 3 of the lenses you are referring to and can safely say the 24-70 and the 18-200 are in different leagues.
dont get me wrong i love my 18-200 when i travel as its versatile and means i can get away with one lens on the trip. but its not sharp by any means, and its not got a constant aperture either.

 

[Josh220]

Why get the 24-70. Get the 50mm its like half the price. And just move backwards and forwards to make it a 24 - 70!

Spend the money on something else like a 18-200!

another gem of wisdom :lmao::lmao:

pass on argueably one of nikons sharpest and best lenses for a lens that is slower and softer.

i have all 3 of the lenses you are referring to and can safely say the 24-70 and the 18-200 are in different leagues.
dont get me wrong i love my 18-200 when i travel as its versatile and means i can get away with one lens on the trip. but its not sharp by any means, and its not got a constant aperture either.

This.

I may never sell my 18-200 because it's still a versatile lens, but it's not incredibly sharp.

Here is a good video I came across. At about 4:07 he starts to go over his review of the 17-55 vs. 24-70.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8RuKD2vTr4[/ame]

 

[dhilberg]

If you're serious about shooting with the 18-200 then keep it around f/11. It's very sharp stopped down in that range. It does have some wicked distortion at the wide end that doesn't correct completely in post. Pretty soft at 200mm too, especially wide open. It's convenient, but has too many drawbacks for me. I sold mine last summer.

The 24-70 is one of the sharpest Nikon zooms ever.