Help with Decision.

FM Forum Rules
Nikon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
end

Archive 2008 · Help with Decision.

fiddle
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · Help with Decision.

Hi Everyone.
Im have a decision to make, and I wondered If past experience from the forum members would help.
I currently have a D200, a 50 1.8 , and a Tokina 12-24 f/4.. I wanted a mid range lens, the 2 chices I came up with, either the 17-55 or the 28-70..
They are about the same price nowadays, Im thinking the 28-70, the 12-24 cuts into the 17-55, but will I miss the 4mm's between the 24 and 28.?
I know I should be answering these questions to find out what I need... But, some external opinions never hurt.....

Thanks....

Sep 04, 2008 at 04:23 PM

phillip ino
Online
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #2 · Help with Decision.

I say go for the 28-70. I don't think the missing 4mm is that big a deal when you're shooting at that focal length....you can always make up for it with your feet

Sep 04, 2008 at 04:28 PM

hjanssen
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · Help with Decision.

I had both(17-55 and 28-70) on a D200. I had the 28-70 first and used it a lot till the moment I bought the 17-55 and after 3 months I sold it. The focal length length of the 17-55 on DX is the same as the 28-70 on FX. You can better have focal lengths that overlap that wroks more convenient.

Sep 04, 2008 at 04:28 PM

w2hef
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #4 · Help with Decision.

I owned the 17-55 when i had my d200, d300... but when i went to FX with the D3 i sold it in lieu of the 24-70... that 17-55 was a great sharp lens.. if you have no plans in going to FX then it's a great lens.

Sep 04, 2008 at 04:48 PM

fiddle
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · Help with Decision.

Thanks for the opinions guys, I appreciate it. I guess I also have to factor in if fx is an option in the near future... Ill keep breaking my head....
thanks again..

Sep 04, 2008 at 06:12 PM

Todd Warnke
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · Help with Decision.

With the 12-24 already on hand, I think I'd go for the 28-70. There is almost no situation I can think of where the gap between 24 and 28 would cause a problem, while adding the reach to 70mm is, at least for my style of shooting, a nice addition. Plus, you're future-proofing youself at the same time.

Peace,

Todd

Sep 04, 2008 at 06:18 PM

Rodolfo Paiz
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #7 · Help with Decision.

Kind of depends on how you shoot the most, of course. It's not about how many millimeters of focal length overlap, but what percentage of your images are in the overlap area and which is the best lens at that focal length. If you're shooting between 18mm and 24mm a lot, you may find that the 17-55 becomes your primary lens while your 12-24 becomes a secondary lens, used mostly for 12-16mm range. Where they overlap, the 17-55 will run laps around the 12-24 without breaking a sweat... it is in an entirely different league of lens and image quality. The 28-70 really only makes sense to me on a D200 if you desperately need those extra 15mm or you're really seriously thinking about going FX in the very near future.

But I would guess that FX is completely irrelevant to you, and I suggest you ignore it entirely. Why? If I make the key assumption that your current investment in your D200, 12-24, and 50/1.8 fits your needs, budget, and level of interest/commitment, then FX is just too bloody expensive to make any sense. Your whole kit is worth less than $1,500 if you sell it today, while a D700 is about $3,000 for the body alone, and then you get to spend thousands more in glass to go with it. Meanwhile, there is still a whole world of glass in front of you, and the D300 as well, in the DX realm. So unless you plan to spend $6,000 to $10,000 on cameras in the near future, FX is currently irrelevant to your particular needs and profile, just like medium-format is.

Let me suggest an alternative: for less than the price of a 17-55, you can get a Tamron 17-50/2.8 and a Tokina 50-135/2.8. Those are both great lenses, with great reputations, and they'd get you a whole lot farther while giving you back a little change, even. But if it's strictly a choice between the 17-55 and 28-70, I'd say 17-55 all the way.

Sep 04, 2008 at 06:44 PM

jamach
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · Help with Decision.

Fantastic point Rodolfo. The D300 and other DX's still have much life left and there are incredible DX lenses available

Joe

Sep 04, 2008 at 06:54 PM

Andre Labonte
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · Help with Decision.

The 17-55 makes the perfect mid-range zoom on DX format. The difference between 55 and 70mm is nothing but the difference between 17 and 28mm is HUGE HUGE HUGE. If you get the 28-70 you will be switching lenses a lot. The 17-55 will stay on the camera most of the time.

Sep 04, 2008 at 08:19 PM

Avi B
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.1 #10 · Help with Decision.

Some numbers to throw out your way (and I am also recommending the 17-55 btw):

17-55 on DX works out to 26-82 FOV in 35mm terms
28-70 on DX works out to 42-105 FOV in 35mm terms

So that 11mm difference on the wide end is a good 16mm in real FOV terms....

If you shoot events and the like, the 17-55 is indispensable.

Sep 04, 2008 at 08:33 PM

panos.v
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · Help with Decision.

It depends how you shoot. It is not all about mm coverage. First, 55 vs 70mm is really not a difference at all. This is a step forward and the perspective difference is not that big anyway. And the 12-24 might overlap in the 17-24 range with the 17-55 but when it comes to usability, you'll be able to do a lot more shooting without swapping lenses with the 17-55.

The 17-55 is a much more usable lens on DX than the 28-70. Unless of course you have an eye on a D700...

Sep 04, 2008 at 08:39 PM

fiddle
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · Help with Decision.

OK... I think Im convinced... So, who has a nice clean, sharp, cheap copy of a 17-55 to sell.
lol..
Thanks again for all the help..

Sep 05, 2008 at 03:30 AM

Chris S.
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · Help with Decision.

I strongly echo the sentiments of those who say to go with the 17-55 Nikkor even though you have a 12-24mm. When I had my D200, I had both lenses, though my 12-24 was the Nikkor. I pulled out the 12-24 only when I wanted to work ultrawide--the rest of the time, unless doing macro or telephoto work, the 17--55 just stayed on the camera. There is an amazing and wonderful look to images that come from that lens that is quite distinctive.

I did, also, have a 28-70mm for a while, but found that for me, that range was not terribly useful on the D200. Was happy to sell it.

If your needs change, just sell the lens. If you buy and sell carefully, your loss is likely to be very small. I bought a good used copy of the 17-55mm, took decent care of it, and when I moved to the D700, sold that lens for $50 less than I'd paid for it. That's almost two years of use for $50--about what I'd pay to rent it for a day. Same deal with the 12-24mm, except that my loss was only $16.

When I moved to the D700, I was surprised how painful it was to part with the 17-55mm. I've never enjoyed a lens quite that much. I have the 24-70mm now, but have been shooting too little since it came in to have a strong opinion on it.

Cheers,

--Chris

Sep 05, 2008 at 05:58 AM

end
FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell end