Nikon 17-55mm/2.8G vs. 24-70mm/2.8

[jdong217]

Well, I'm getting ready to drop money on one of these. I have more than enough saved up in my rainy day fund. However, I own a D3100 right now and am planning for my next camera to be the D7000. I don't think I can see myself going to FX ever, save for maybe in the very distant future. DX isn't dying right? It just seems much more accessible to serious amateurs than FX right now.

Besides, I'm more concerned with lenses right now.

My current collection is 18-55mm/3.5-5.6, 35mm/1.8G, and Tokina 11-16mm/2.8. I'm quite satisfied with the range of the 18-55 and I don't think I've been in many situations where I wish I could've zoomed in further. The 24-70 range is okay to me, but I'm not sure how I feel about not going wide at the 24 end.

Is the image quality much different between the two?

 

[D-B-J]

24 isn't really that wide on a DX sensor. Get the 17-55 and don't look back.

 

[Patrice]

Is the image quality much different between the two?

Both are essentially at top of their game. For all practical purposes, pixel peepers notwithstanding, both have excellent image quality for the type of lenses they are.

The web is full of reviews, comparisons and opinions on these two lenses. Have fun, google will give lots to look at.

I guess your 'rainy day' fund has turned into your 'mad money fund'.

 

[tirediron]

I agree that the 17-55 range is typically a more useful range on a DX body.

 

[BJF]

Agree with comments above. Here you are two links for your reference.

Nikon 17-55mm/f2.8G

Nikon 24-70mm/f2.8G

 

[cnutco]

What are your plans for this new purchase? What type of shooting?

I have both, you can not go wrong with either!

 

[ghache]

depends what your shooting, if you shoot portrait alots, get the 24-70, even on a crop body sensor i LOVE the range and its totaly usuable indoor.

 

[jdong217]

I don't shoot many portraits. I'll take a lot of pictures of friends, but they're mostly candids and typically they're full body shots. I'm also into landscapes and city photography, street life, night life, etc.

 

[Trever1t]

+3 DX=17-55

 

[boomer]

In your case, I would say go for the 17-55mm. You'll save a few bucks too.

 

[mrpink]

Love my 17-55. It is a great workhorse type lens. Rarely leaves my camera, never leaves my bag.






p!nK

 

[cnutco]

I don't shoot many portraits. I'll take a lot of pictures of friends, but they're mostly candids and typically they're full body shots. I'm also into landscapes and city photography, street life, night life, etc.

Yep, then the Nikon 17-55mm/2.8G is perfect for you!:thumbup:

 

[jdong217]

thanks for the help guys. Just one last question: how is the bokeh on the 17 end? ken rockwell's review says it is not so great from 17-mid range, but sometimes I like that effect even if I'm not up close.

I'm leaning 75% towards the 17-55 at this point. I wish it just had a little more reach to it. But in the end, I care more about the wide end I think. I have the 55-200 so I was thinking maybe just using 55-70 for a day just to see how that works out?

One last thing: I'm going to Shanghai in three days (Friday). Does it make sense for me to get the lens before then? I mean I'm only in Asia until January and I won;t be going back to Shanghai on this trip and probably won't be back for at least 10 years...but at the same time I just recently got the Tokina 11-16 and feel like I'm moving kind of fast

 

[2WheelPhoto]

for my D7000 I have a Nikon 70-200, 24-70, and Tokina 11-16.

I plan to go full frame, but anyway the 24-70 works GREAT, even considering the crop factor. And for the people shots I'd rather be at 70 at the end instead of 55, I seem to always use that the most.

No regrets on the 24-70.