I tried the 17-55 and found the image quality to be excellent and not much difference on DX to the 24-70. However, just because its zoom range is 17-55 on DX does not automatically make it the best mid range zoom for DX. It's up to the user really - if 17mm is wide enough as a walkaround lens then great, go for it. However, if you'd need wider then you'll be swapping lenses, whether you're using a 17-55 or a 24-70. To me, the extra 15mm on the long end was more important....
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
Unless I'm mistaken, any lens designed for FX should perform at its absolute best on a DX camera, since the DX sensor is smaller and only gets the light output from the center of the image circle that the lens produces.
But between two DX cameras, the difference will not come from the lens in any way, only from the sensor, the software, and the processing. I don't think you'd see any real difference between the images from the D80 and the D300. The D300 might allow you to capture shots that the D80 could not get, due to other factors like the better AF engine, the weather sealing, the faster burst rate, or something else... but if you managed to get the same image from both cameras, I don't think that there would be a significant difference in the end result once it has been captured.
I disagree with Kaj. The best midrange zoom for a DX camera is the 17-55. The build quality, handling, image quality, AF speed, and other factors are just as good -- meaning both of them are incredibly good -- but the range of the 17-55 is much better suited to the DX sensor. The extra 15 mm of reach on the long end are not really that big a deal, but the 7 mm difference on the wide end are a much bigger deal and have a greater impact on the images you can capture.
The 17-55 can capture a field of view from 28.9° to 79°, while the 24-70 can capture a field of view from 34.3° to 84°. A first superficial glance at the numbers would seem to show a very similar five-degree difference at both ends of the range, but if you actually look at those angles and what they can do to your shooting possibilities, then you understand why Nikon created both lenses instead of simply offering one....Show more →
I tried the 17-55 and found the image quality to be excellent and not much difference on DX to the 24-70. However, just because its zoom range is 17-55 on DX does not automatically make it the best mid range zoom for DX. It's up to the user really - if 17mm is wide enough as a walkaround lens then great, go for it. However, if you'd need wider then you'll be swapping lenses, whether you're using a 17-55 or a 24-70. To me, the extra 15mm on the long end was more important....
Hi, Dubaiphil!
As a suggestion, please edit out the parts of previous posts that are not directly relevant or useful for your own post to make sense. Everyone else has read them already, and snipping off those irrelevant parts is generally regarded as good posting etiquette since it doesn't clutter up your post -- and everyone else's reading time -- with content that doesn't add value.
As to your statement, I agree (of course) that some users will prefer the range of the 24-70. Then again, others will need the lower price of the Tamron 17-50 or the Tokina, and yet others will sacrifice some aperture to get a broader zoom range and VR with the 16-85. Different strokes for different folks, of course, just as you mentioned.
I personally regard the 17-55 as the best overall mid-range zoom for the DX sensor (if you can pay for it) because it was designed and built for that sensor, and its smaller image circle allows its "35mm equivalent" range to be about 25-85mm, essentially the same as the 24-70 at the wide end on an FX body but 15 mmeq longer at the telephoto end. That's not an insignificant difference. I also prefer the internally-focused design whose front end does not extend or retract as you zoom, something that annoys me no end about my lovely 24-70.
It's OK for you and I to choose different lenses for our own personal needs. But if you have to make a judgment call about what is generally best for the majority of users, I definitely believe the 17-55 offers the best-quality solution for the DX sensor.
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
Unless I'm mistaken, any lens designed for FX should perform at its absolute best on a DX camera, since the DX sensor is smaller and only gets the light output from the center of the image circle that the lens produces.
But between two DX cameras, the difference will not come from the lens in any way, only from the sensor, the software, and the processing. I don't think you'd see any real difference between the images from the D80 and the D300. The D300 might allow you to capture shots that the D80 could not get, due to other factors like the better AF engine, the weather sealing, the faster burst rate, or something else... but if you managed to get the same image from both cameras, I don't think that there would be a significant difference in the end result once it has been captured.
I disagree with Kaj. The best midrange zoom for a DX camera is the 17-55. The build quality, handling, image quality, AF speed, and other factors are just as good -- meaning both of them are incredibly good -- but the range of the 17-55 is much better suited to the DX sensor. The extra 15 mm of reach on the long end are not really that big a deal, but the 7 mm difference on the wide end are a much bigger deal and have a greater impact on the images you can capture.
The 17-55 can capture a field of view from 28.9° to 79°, while the 24-70 can capture a field of view from 34.3° to 84°. A first superficial glance at the numbers would seem to show a very similar five-degree difference at both ends of the range, but if you actually look at those angles and what they can do to your shooting possibilities, then you understand why Nikon created both lenses instead of simply offering one....Show more →
No reason to disagree. I said the 24-70 is the best in its range for DX. But the range is not that good for DX.
The 17-55 is definitely a better range for DX, 24mm is just not wide enough. The 17-55 and 12-24 are my two most used lenses on DX. On FX they are the 24-70 and 14-24. The 70-200 VR definitely sees more use on FX than it ever did on DX.
Well, when you put it that way, I'm entirely on your side. The only difference in our styles is that my 70-200 got the most use of all on DX, and I feel uncomfortably short of reach on FX now.
The 28-70 is great. But if size is a issue look for a good copy of the tamron 28-70 2.8 close to the nikon is sharpness and half the size and weight. I have both and usen the nikon unless traveling or hiking. If in doubt try a returnable copy of the tamron if that does not work go nikon. Nikons are close in my opinion so if you need the 4mm some do it is worth the price if not do as I did after renting and save some money. My tamron is beter at f11 than the nikon is not as good below but from f4 on pretty close. 8-70 is my main lens used on my d300 d700 combo like having two great lenses.
24-70 is an awesome overpriced lens. If you have the dough and can afford it just get it, if not there's plenty of other alternatives out there you'll be happy with until you start shooting with primes.
