eaglewolf Offline Image Upload: On
|
It's really personal preference. I worked with a 35-105 on my first film Nikon, and it did a fine job. Sometimes we get so caught up in ultra-wide (okay, so on DX 17mm is just wide, not ultra-wide) that we just forget about photography.
I find the 24-70 to be a great match with my D300, especially with the other lenses I have. I considered the 17-55, but with the 17-35 already in my bag it just seemed redundant. The 24-70 is incredible, regardless of what camera you use it on.
If you find that you usually shoot more towards the wide end, then maybe the 17-55 would be a better choice. The range is quite good for DX on that lens. Myself, I'm more often shooting towards the longer end, so the 24-70 works great for me. If I'm doing landscapes or other wide angle shots, I pull out the 12-24 or 17-35, depending on what the situation calls for. My bag generally has all of them in it, including the 70-200. Realize that I am supporting both film and digital, so that affects my choices.
Other than future compatibilty with something you don't really know if you are going to invest in, either lens will serve you very well. If there is an ultimate image quality difference between the two lenses, I suspect that it is so minor that it is unlikely to be seen by most of us.
Just my thoughts.
David
Edited on May 16, 2008 at 06:38 AM
|