17-55 or 12-24

[orislee]

depends on what you are shooting I guess. I bought my 12-24mm last year and I sold it after few weeks. Now I am happy with a 2nd hand 17-55mm F/2,8, this lens is sharp, contrasty and the color produced is superb (too bad it is a DX lens). I find 12-24mm too wide and get bored with the surreal effect after a while. Personally, I think 12-24mm is not an easy lens to use.

Get a Nikon 17-55mm F/2,8, a 70-200 VR F/2,8 (or 70-210 F/4,0 if you prefer light weight, someone is selling on buy/sell) and a 85mm F/1,4 and you are almost done if you are shooting macro.

 

[yyD70S]

Sorry, but how to compare sharpness at 12mm for the AF-S 12-24mm f4 vs the AF-S 17-35mm f2.8 ? I missing something, perhaps.

Comparing DX with FF?

... but that wouldn't be apples vs apples; one is optimsed for DX while the other not so :think:

 

[yyD70S]

Back to TS, I would be hard pressed to choose between the 12-24mm and the 17-55mm cos both cover very different perspective despite some overlap.

Only you know your immediate (next-in-line) needs, wants, etc, after acquiring (I assume) the kit (lens).

First and foremost, take your time in choosing and enjoy what your current setup is offering.

 

[2.8photography]

thanks again for your feedback. now i have come down to quite a few lenses
1. Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 (my fav for a long time)
2. Nikkor 12-24 f/4
3. Tokina 12-24 (f/4?)
4. Nikkor 17-35 f/2.8
5. Tamron 17-50 (f/?)
6. Sigma 12-24 (f/4.5-5.6)
7. Tokina 16-50 f/2.8
i was really looking for a pure Nikon lens, but other brands seem to have gd lenses too. if it is the 12-24, i think i'd choose the nikon 1; from what i hear its the best. otherwise in the 16/17-50/55 range all 3 seem quite good. how's the prices of each? im willing to stretch my budget is any1 is remarkably good

 

[Yatlapball]

What exactly are your needs?

For example, other than covering weddings, I actually hardly used 17-55/2.8. I prefer other lenses in almost all other situations...

 

[2.8photography]

i mainly like shooting landscape shots, but 17-55 would be more versatile for me and cover most of my needs. but if image qual from the 12-24 is much better, i would prefer that.

 

[calebk]

12-24 is more of a dedicated WA lens. 17-55 is a walkabout lens. If you're gonna get only one lens, you have to prioritise your needs.

 

[2.8photography]

ive sort of decided which lens i probably shld get. i think i'll go 4 the 17-55 f/2.8 for a more versatile lens, although its not a pure wa lens. maybe it'll even contribute to my f/2.8 collection if i ever do get 1 XD

 

[wahZe]

If you shoot a lot of wide angle, then got for the 12-24.

17-55 is good if you do not need that kind of wide angle. People shots can get a bit distorted at the wide end of the 12-24.

 

[airbiscuit]

I've been using the 17-55 since Feb 07 and for me it is a perfect lens for events (which also includes closeups shooting) when you are about few meters from your subjects...outdoor or indoor, for me this is the lens.

Its all about what you want to shoot actually. And as I started to shoot some serious landscapes I do find that the 17mm is surely not wide enough, for me at least. I know I can move my feet the get the "12 mm" but hey I've been in situations where I wish I got the 12-24 mounted on my camera.

And yes the 12-24 will be my walkaround lens soon and the 17-55 will be my events/closeups/weddings lens.

 

[engowen]

agree with airbiscuit, i'd bought 12-24mm to cover a wider landscape photography. 17-55mm is my walkaround lens.

 

[surge]

i got the 12-24 when it first came out. used it a lot cos its great.but now w the 17-55, it is mounted almost all the time. unless in really tight space, the 17-55 does a good job at wide and tele....if i have to sell one...12-24 will go

 

[Nalanji]

Dear Aric,

agreed buy a 12-24mm for landscape and nature

cheers'
anonymous

 

[azul123]

I think 17mm is good enough for landscapes. If it was me, just buy one that would be used often, else like so many lenses it might just end up in dry cabinet if like me you are a hobbyist.

For me better buy is 17-55mm, though not needed at faster speed for landscape but it can double up as walkabout and indoor lens.

../azul123

 

[2.8photography]

I think 17mm is good enough for landscapes. If it was me, just buy one that would be used often, else like so many lenses it might just end up in dry cabinet if like me you are a hobbyist.

For me better buy is 17-55mm, though not needed at faster speed for landscape but it can double up as walkabout and indoor lens.

../azul123

ive heard that the distortion for the 17-55 is really bad.......

 

[azul123]

ive heard that the distortion for the 17-55 is really bad.......

It's common with these very wide angles epending on where you zoom to, I believe 12-24 is also same.

../azul123

 

[zzkkc]

Tokina 12-24 :thumbsup: view the sample photo take from Nikon D2X


http://www.flickr.com/photos/10774683@N02/963974062/in/photostream/

 

[jmmtn4aj]

Lots of people own both. I don't see how they fit in the same category..

 

[Yatlapball]

Distortion can be overcome... and it can also be fixed. Understand the limitations of your equipment and you will never run into trouble while shooting.

 

[zoossh]

Lots of people own both. I don't see how they fit in the same category..

it may not be the same category. but some people can only choose one out of the two category. Lots of people own both, but more people can only afford one instead of both.