I currently have a 17-55 f2.8. I found when I used it, it is for indoor people shoots. And there are times I wish it's longer.
So if focal range is NOT a concern, which of 24-70 f2.8 or 17-55 f2.8 is better on a D300? That is, which has better IQ and quality in general for both indoor and outdoor?
Just look at your photos and see if you shoot more pics in the wide or long end. If you consistently think you need more reach, the 24-70 may be the right choice for you. I still debating about the 24-70 myself, but I think it is absurdly overpriced at the moment.
Most accounts indicate that the 24-70 is sharper wide open I sold my 17-55mm because I just wasn't enjoyign using it. I always wanted more reach. So, I am saving up fo the 24-70m now. The 16-85mm VR is holdign me over til then.
penghai wrote:
I currently have a 17-55 f2.8. I found when I used it, it is for indoor people shoots. And there are times I wish it's longer.
So if focal range is NOT a concern, which of 24-70 f2.8 or 17-55 f2.8 is better on a D300? That is, which has better IQ and quality in general for both indoor and outdoor?
Thanks.
Eric.
May 16, 2008 at 02:49 PM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
penghai wrote:
I currently have a 17-55 f2.8. I found when I used it, it is for indoor people shoots. And there are times I wish it's longer.
So if focal range is NOT a concern, which of 24-70 f2.8 or 17-55 f2.8 is better on a D300? That is, which has better IQ and quality in general for both indoor and outdoor?
Thanks.
Eric.
If you are planning on switching from the 17-55 to the 24-70 to get more reach, I suspect you are going to be dissapointed. The difference between 55 and 70mm is small. The FX equivalent FOV is 83 and 105mm respectively. However, on the wide end, the difference between 17 and 24mm is HUGE! The FX equivalent FOV is 25 and 36mm respectively
Test it out yourself. Get your hands on a 16-85 and zoom back and forth between 17-24 and between 55-70mm. That was enough to convince me that the 17-55 is the way to go on DX format. Remeber, in most indoor situations you can always more forward a little if you need a tighter crop, but on the wide end, once you have your back against the wall, the only way to include more is to go wider.
As for all the IQ arguments you will hear ... ignore them. Unless you intend to generate full-height, wall-sized prints to be viewed from 3 feet away, you are not going to see the difference between these two lenses.
I was in the same predicament. I LOVED the Canon 17-55 2.8IS, but I moved to the D300 as well. If you can only afford 1 lens, then get the 17-55. Andre summed it up beautifully. I bought both the 17-55 and the 24-70 and tested them side by side. The 24-70 won out in the IQ department, but it certainly wasn't a drastic difference with my 2 copies. For me even though the 24-70 is a lot more expensive, I wanted to use the 24-70 for portraits when I wasn't shooting with my port lens--the 70-200VR. I also knew that I would be getting a UWA at some point--I have a Tokina 12-24 and 11-16 on the way next week--because 17 still isn't all that wide on a 1.5X. What the 17-55 is perfect for I believe is that it is a great general purpose/travel lens. If your needs exceed that then by all means get the 24-70 and an ultrawide.
Man, this question gets asked a lot. Lets face it - the 17-55 was made for DX, while the 24-70 is made for FX. Both do a great job on DX, though the 17-55 gives a more versatile range for most photographers.
As for being disappointed in the 24-70, I doubt that would be the case. I, and virtually everyone else who comments on it, love the lens. Long enough? Heck no! My 600mm f/4 with 1.7X TC isn't always long enough. Wide enough? Sometimes not, but I've got other lenses for that - I just pick what I plan to use, or carry two cameras if I don't want to be switching lenses and need different focal lengths.
Frankly though, if it wasn't for the fact that I'm supporting a film system and plan on adding an FX body someday, I probably would have bought the 17-55. That is assuming I didn't already have the superb 17-35 in my bag, which functions as a wider low-light alternative when needed. As Andre said, the 17-55 is a great range for DX. I do like the 24-70 for how I usually shoot, but each photographer is different. Both lenses are sure to please.
Both great lenses... one is a little better according to an MTF lab somewhere, and also a lot more expensive. Both have phenominal AF capability and build. Both will impress, but both have a slightly different focal range. 17mm is a fair chunk wider than 24mm though, and for me it's the difference between wide and not wide on a DX sensor. You can do most things fairly wide with the 17-55 - you can't with the 24-70. The difference between 55 and 70 isn't as great. If you already own a wide zoom like the 12-24 or 10-20 etc, then it's a moot point.
Personally, the bigger question is do you intend on going FX someday soon enough? If not, you can't go wrong with either. My two cents which ain't worth nothin'...
Go with the 17-55MM. Last summer I was at the Japanese Gardens in Rockford, IL. I forced myself to shoot with a Tokina 12-24 for an hour. Probably burned out every brain cell I had doing it, but I got a lot of great shots I never would have gotten with a longer lens. Now, the 12-24 is never far away.
You can almost always get closer to the subject, but you can't always back up.
I'll weigh in for the 24-70mm. I had the 17-55mm for about 3 months before the 24-70 hit the market, and just didn't like the focal range. My local Ritz store happily allowed me to trade in my 17-55 mm when the 24-70 arrived (I don't think they thought it was going to take 3 months from when I ordered the 24-70 mm and they sold me the 17-55 mm to tide me over until the 24-70 mm arrived). I haven't felt limited on the wide end with the 24-70, and while the longer end isn't much longer, it makes enough of a difference when I shoot indoor sports (basketball and volleyball in my school's gymnasium). I also prefer the 24-70 IQ (better contrast IMHO).
When I need to go really wide, I have other lenses to grab.
Thanks all for sharing your valuable comments. I appreciate it all.
I just want to add some background info of my equipments. I also have a 16-85 VR which is my walk-around lens. Ever since I got the 16-85 VR, my 17-55 become my low-light/indoor lens or when I want the best IQ.
For those that have made this decision, did you have a wide angle lens (12-24, 10-20, etc)? and if so how did that effect your decision. Currently my gap is from 24mm to 70mm, and I am looking for a great portrait/walk around lens.
The Nikon 17-55 was actually one factor that I considered in my recent move from Canon to Nikon. The extra 7mm on the wide end is really a HUGE difference, and you barely notice the 15mm on the long end. I shot with a 24-70 on my 40D, but it really wasn't very wide at all, and the build quality of the Canon 17-55 just doesn't inspire the same confidence as the Nikon, which is one of my favorite lenses to handle.
) and have never been happier.