So I'm ready to pull the trigger on purchasing some new glass this week. The 24-70 and possibly the 70-200 (although I might wait on the latter with rumors of a new revision). Anyhow, I currently own a 12-24 and have absolutely no desire to let it go. I was pretty jet set on the 24-70 but am now considering the 17-55 because of the more versatile range.

The 24-70 would pretty much become my workhorse lens for both landscape, family shots, portrait etc...so with that said, is there any reason that I should be concerned that the 24-70 is an awkward range on DX? i.e. 36-105.

My feelings right now is that if I am going to be shooting 17-24 it will likely be a landscape type shot so I am covered with my 12-24 and the 24-70 guarantees me an upgrade path to FX.

Please help me with my insanity.

Dave

Dave:

If you are the type that hates to change lenses or can only afford 1 lens, then the 17-55 is incredible for your needs. I came over from Canon and the 17-55 IS is a great lens. If the Nikon had VR I probably would have gotten the 17-55.

That being said, the 24-70 is the best zoom I have ever used. The 70-200 is my go to workhorse for outdoor portraits. If you didn't have the 12-24 already, your decision would be a lot harder. I think you're on the right track.

do it, you wont regret it.

If you have a 12-24 and you don't shoot in a lot very close quarters fast moving social situations (where something like the 17-55 excels), a kit of the 12-24, 24-70, and 70-200 makes perfect sense.

24-70 on DX also makes a great portrait range.

Jammy Straub wrote:
If you have a 12-24 and you don't shoot in a lot very close quarters fast moving social situations (where something like the 17-55 excels), a kit of the 12-24, 24-70, and 70-200 makes perfect sense.

24-70 on DX also makes a great portrait range.

Yes no event or wedding photography now, perhaps one day in the future, and if I was making money at that I'd probably be purchasing a D3

Dave,

I had your exact dilemma until I bit the bullet and bought the 24-70. I don't regret it. The 24-70 is an awesome lens. It's my new workhorse.

If you shoot for pleasure you will love the convenience of 16-85 vr with image quality second to none and better than 12-24.

tjny wrote:
If you shoot for pleasure you will love the convenience of 16-85 vr with image quality second to none and better than 12-24.

Thank you for the suggestion but the 16-85 isn't really in the cards. I'd like constant aperture and it is in no way wide enough to replace my 12-24.

I know you are getting all hung up on the focal length thing, but the 24-70 is just such a great piece of glass that you will learn to use it, also when you move to a D3 (I have 2) you will have your prefered focal limits.
I use this glass and the new 14-24 not only on my D3's but also on my D2x's and D2h's and all is good.
In fact I find I shoot in DX mode on the D3 more than full frame and the 24-70 rocks.
Gav

I had the 17-55 mm lens for a brief period (~3-months) while waiting for the 24-70 mm to come in (my local Ritz store was very accommodating). I prefer the longer focal length afforded by the 24-70 (acknowledging it's a mere step or two compared with the 17-55). I also have the 12-24 (and 14-24, but that's another story) if I need to go wider . . . which for me, is when I'm shooting landscapes. I have found that the 24-70 works fine for my needs when shooting people indoors (i.e., I don't need or miss the wider FOV provided by the 17-55).

Personal preferences aside, pros for the 24-70 are the optical performance (sharpness and contrast -- about as good as it gets), and FX compatibility (which may or may not be a factor for you).

Cons for the 24-70 is slightly larger size than the 17-55, where it can obscure/block the in-camera flash. I don't recall the 17-55 lens casting a shadow in shots taken with flash. You should use the SB-800 or 600 whenever you need flash with the 24-70.

I'm feeling kinda nutty tonight...for some reason I keep thinking that the 17-55 is the way to go on DX and that I'm going to have to deal with constantly changing lenses....

Decisions decisions...help!

I had a 28-70 and I sold 3 months after I bought a 17-55, reason: the 28-70 didn't out of the bag.

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

On DX format, the 17-55 is a much more versatile range for most. I think you will be happy with that decision.

I have it on the D300 and it's my standard lens now! You will love it as well!

Yeah, I am about to go D3, but have loved my 17-55. Looks like I'll be getting a 17-35 and 24-70 for the D3 (and D300).