I bought the 17-55 DX (Thank you Raymond )2 weeks ago and will get a Sigma 10-20 today. So far so good I am happy with that combo on my D300.
But 2 days ago, it started nagging me again. I hope to have a FX body later this year (D700 or whatever they will call it) and then doubt assailed me. Shouldn't I sell my 17-55 now and replace it with a 24-70? I am loosing sleep, I am drooling evey time I see that name on a forum....
What should I do? PLeaaase, I waaaaant that baby. Tell me I am right
Why not get both? I wouldn't see why not. If I was to have one, I would probably have 24-70 since it works on FX and DX. The 17-55 is a very nice lens too... Hmmm choices.
I have the 17-55 and it is my most used lens by far on my D200. I'm picking up a couple D3s very very soon, though and this is something that also plagues me. I'll be getting the 24-70, but I don't know whether I should keep the 17-55 or not for my D200 backups. It's just been such an awesome lens for the past couple of years, I just don't see leaving it.
My advice to you would be to hang on to it and see how much you like it. Then you can always think about whether or not you'll keep it once you actually have the FX body.
Have fun with the 17-55, it is my favorite lens by far.
You are all wise men. (much more than when you have a bout of that plague yourselves )
I do not see the FX happening to me before the end of this year at the earliest though, so it is probably wiser to wait till then to decide. But, that NAS is hard to fight
John Hanon wrote:
I bought the 17-55 DX (Thank you Raymond )2 weeks ago and will get a Sigma 10-20 today. So far so good I am happy with that combo on my D300.
But 2 days ago, it started nagging me again. I hope to have a FX body later this year (D700 or whatever they will call it) and then doubt assailed me. Shouldn't I sell my 17-55 now and replace it with a 24-70? I am loosing sleep, I am drooling evey time I see that name on a forum....
What should I do? PLeaaase, I waaaaant that baby. Tell me I am right ...Show more →
Man! behave! don't ditch your 17-55 for a 24-70... you'll regret it bigtime. go for both. I will
before i do so, i have to use my sigma 24-70 2.8 ... it's fine enough.
eh.. it almost sounds if i already have an FX cam. i need to get that first
i own both but in my view, the 24-70 seems better. it has longer reach for most shots that i go for, although many claim with two steps, you can achieve from 55 to 70mm, althought there ARE instances that do not allow u to take 2 steps up!
for wide angles, i have a 12-24 to cover, so that makes the 17-55 not used very much.
on a plus point, the 17-55 has good IQ, is smaller and lighter than then 24-70 which is much heavier.
all depends what you are looking for... im also intending to sell one of them to fund a purchase for the TC or macro.. ; (
I have to say I don't share the excitement over the 24-70 on a cropped-sensor camera. Okay, it's a very nice, very sharp lens... and??
It would be a dream on a D3, but on the D300 I prefer the 17-55mm focal length for my purposes. The 7mm advantage on the wide end is more useful and practical to me (not to mention dramatic) than gaining an extra 15mm on the long end. But depending on your style of shooting, it may make perfect sense. It's all about your own priorities.
And I wouldn't worry about a camera that doesn't even have a name yet... you can't cross that bridge until they build it anyway
I am not worried about that future body, but I know it will come one day and I will want to buy it. But I am in no hurry.
Regarding the focal length, I seldom shoot below 24mm, I checked today my LR catalog and on the 300 + pictures taken between 17 and 55 mm, less than 10% were below 24mm. So I believe I will sell the 17-55 and get the 24-70 (sorry Raymond, but I can't afford both ).
... and I did not get the Sigma 10-20 today as planned, I will wait until I have the 24-70 next week, and see if I really miss the short end.
Thanks to all,
John
PS: Yesssss I want the 24-70 because it is the new kid on the block
I get into more arguments over that combo than any other. Since I found the 24-70 f2.8 my MOST used lens in the field on a D300 I never had the urge to get a 17-55 f2.8. Instead got the 14-24 f2.8, which from all users of the D3 is a MUST HAVE lens if you plan on wide on a FX body. I too am waiting for my ship to come in, and when it does will likely get a D3. Since it is very unlikely to occur prior to at least next spring, I have time to think about it, but am now ready with my lens collection. NO more DX lenses for me thanks...........
Jun 20, 2008 at 09:24 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
The D700 is VAPORWARE!!!!! Wait until it is announced, then you can decide. Acting now may be a painful mistake if the D700 never materializes. After all, just a week ago, the D700 was called the D10.
traveler wrote:
I get into more arguments over that combo than any other. Since I found the 24-70 f2.8 my MOST used lens in the field on a D300 I never had the urge to get a 17-55 f2.8. Instead got the 14-24 f2.8, which from all users of the D3 is a MUST HAVE lens if you plan on wide on a FX body. I too am waiting for my ship to come in, and when it does will likely get a D3. Since it is very unlikely to occur prior to at least next spring, I have time to think about it, but am now ready with my lens collection. NO more DX lenses for me thanks..............Show more →
I can imagine that would stir a difference of opinion: the 14-24 would be the *last* lens I'd put on a cropped-sensor camera (less bang, more buck)... and if I had a D3, I'd consider the 17-35, the "must have."
John Hanon wrote:
I bought the 17-55 DX (Thank you Raymond )2 weeks ago and will get a Sigma 10-20 today. So far so good I am happy with that combo on my D300.
But 2 days ago, it started nagging me again. I hope to have a FX body later this year (D700 or whatever they will call it) and then doubt assailed me. Shouldn't I sell my 17-55 now and replace it with a 24-70? I am loosing sleep, I am drooling evey time I see that name on a forum....
What should I do? PLeaaase, I waaaaant that baby. Tell me I am right ...Show more →
Everybody who takes photography seriously should have a backup, so when you get your FX camera I assume you'll still keep the D300, so you should also keep the 17-55 for the D300.
The 24-70 is a great lens - I have it - but why do you want it now? Wait 'til you get the new body.
The 300 f/4 AF-S is also a great lens - I have it, too - so you should get that next since it gives you new coverage, focal-length-wise. Or you could wait to see if Nikon comes out with a VR version, since that's my biggest complaint about the 300 - At that focal length, if you don't have it on a tripod you pretty much have to shoot in bright sunlight to have a high enough shutter speed and low enough ISO to get critical quality shots.
Just a technical note - the usual rule of thumb is 1/focal-length as the minimum shutter speed for hand-holding. But that's really a minimum - I have steadier-than-average hands and I've found that to achieve tripod-like-results I need to shoot at 2-3 times that speed.
Center-sharpness on the 300 is amazing, even wide open, but edge-sharpness improves at f/5.6 and a little more at f/8, so I like to shoot it stopped-down 1 or 2.
The D300's noise levels are fantastic at ISO 200, but there is noticable shadow noise creeping in at ISO 400 although I can usually live with it.
So putting all this together, if you want to shoot critical quality shots, say of birds, with the 300 the "sunny 16 rule" says you can do it at 1/800th of a second at f/8 at ISO 200 in bright sunlight. In my experience, the "sunny 16" rule is a tad optimistic so I've found 1/1000th at f/5.6 at ISO 200, or 1/1000th at f/8 with ISO 400 is often required.
So that's OK for bright sunlight but if it's cloudy or getting near the end of the day I find myself wishing for the 300 f/2.8, or VR because the current 300 f/4 forces you into too many compromises.
The focal lengths sound fairly close, but the 17-55 and 24-70 are completely different animals. If one suits your shooting style well, the other is likely not to.
I actually switched from Canon to Nikon recently, and one of the factors that influenced me was the build quality of Nikon's 17-55. I had the 24-70L on the Canon and found it unusable for my style of photography on several levels. It's much more conspicuous and that 7mm on the wide end is a MASSIVE difference.
Get the one you want, or both, but don't confuse them as similar lenses. Either one is a winner depending on your style
emagdnim2100 wrote:
The focal lengths sound fairly close, but the 17-55 and 24-70 are completely different animals. If one suits your shooting style well, the other is likely not to.
I actually switched from Canon to Nikon recently, and one of the factors that influenced me was the build quality of Nikon's 17-55. I had the 24-70L on the Canon and found it unusable for my style of photography on several levels. It's much more conspicuous and that 7mm on the wide end is a MASSIVE difference.
Get the one you want, or both, but don't confuse them as similar lenses. Either one is a winner depending on your style ...Show more →
Thank you.
I checked my pictures and found that when using the 17-50 (Tamron) and now the 17-55 Nikkor, less than 10% of my shots were at 24mm or less.
Now, I know I am not being rational here, I am just trying to convince myself that the 24-70 is the lens I need. I want to have it for the joy of possession of a great piece of glass.
I am going to spend a day in Bangkok this week with the 17-55 and analyse my shots, and then I will eventually decide who wins NAS or reason.
)2 weeks ago and will get a Sigma 10-20 today. So far so good I am happy with that combo on my D300.
