17-55mm f/2.8 v.s. 24-70mm f/2.8

[aq12345]

Thanks for the replies. Anyway, 17-35 is a FF lens?

 

[Jed]

Yes it is.

 

[lumin008]

From reading your post I'm not sure that's the conclusion I'd draw (ie that the 17-35 had "clearly superior image quality"), but I'm not saying that your conclusion is flawed, only that it's not the one I would draw.

WRT distortion the 17-35 is better yes. But if the 17-55 is better in the corners up to about f5.6, then I see that as a clear, major advantage to the 17-55 as well. I use my 17-55 (and the 17-35 before it) between the range of f2.8 to f5.6 for the vast majority of my images with those lenses. In addition, although I cannot equate the following directly with the two lenses since I do not have detailed shots in front of me, it stands to reason that I would rather have (as an example) average corners wide open and good corners stopped down, to poor corners wide open and very good corners stopped down.

That's just me, but if someone was considering these two lenses, then I think there's a very high possibility the 17-35 won't necessarily be clearly superior... for my work (even though I take other pictures where I would maybe prefer the 17-35 based on your evaluation), the 17-55 sounds better every way I look at it (distortion isn't an issue, very rarely do I go beyond f5.6).

When I buy f2.8 glass, it tends to be because I need the fast aperture, so the fact that one lens performs better after stopping down beyond f5.6, doesn't make the strongest argument (although there is merit of course).

Actually, I fully agree with your observation -- particulary with regard to corner sharpness up to f/5.6.

What I found was that stopped-down corner improvements for the 17-55 improved only marginally after f/4.0 (thought it did continue to improve). The 17-35, though behind intially, continue to improve past f/8.0, by which time my 17-35 display much sharper corners. Obviously, this is irrelevant for most people (who shoot wide open or stopped down 1-2 f-stops) but not for me (landscaper -- is there such a word??).

I also found significant differences with vignetting, which is hardly suprising given one lens is FX and the other DX.

We draw different conclusions because we are measuring different aspects of IQ. Sorry for not being precise.

 

[fabianaino]

ok ok children, let's talk about 24-70mm F2.8. ;p

 

[calebk]

u forgot about the built too. and 17-55 lens zoom in and out like a vaccum cleaner.

the rest you already pointed out. and distrotion. horrible.

I was under the impressions that vacuum cleaners suck, not zoom. Anyway, WRT to distortion, with a longer zoom range, chances are the distortion will be more obvious. Also, WRT to your sweeping statement of distortion being obvious in every picture, what form of distortion is noticeable? Geometric? Barrel? Complex? Any sample photos to show?

MTF is only part of the story. I find the biggest difference between the two is distortion (17-35mm is superior) and corner sharpness at respective f-stops (17-55 is better wide open, the 17-35 catches-up and overtakes at f/5.6 up).

I sold my 17-55mm for the the 17-35mm because of its clearly superior IQ, but I miss the convenience to the 17-55mm from time to time.

That said, yes the 17-55 will definitely be more convenient on a 1.5x crop. The 24-70 is not in the equation for the very reason that at 24mm, the wide angle advantage is immediately lost.

My question now is at 17mm on both the 17-35 and 17-55, is the distortion considered simple distortion (barrel distortion) or complex (wavy) distortion, such as that exhibited from the Sigma 10-20? If it is barrel distortion, I'll tell you to quit whining and correct it in photoshop. If you're doing architectural work on a digital medium, you should at least have the decency to correct distortions and not whine about it.

 

[koshinki]

if plan to buy D3 in short period, 24-70 should be better. BUT, i don't know when i got the budget to buy this FF camera! maybe 2 years, maybe "wait long long":bsmilie:
my thinking is, get the 17-55, use it 1st. if i got the money to get D3, i still can use this lens because it able to plug in to D3 (of course, it will change back to 1.5x crop photo...correct me if i'm wrong).

 

[zoossh]

if u use a full frame camera - 24-70
if u use a cropped camera:
a) u do alot of events/wedding and got oni 1 body - 17-55
b) u do alot of events/wedding and got 2 bodies - 17-35 + 85
c) u r a hobbist and u have no other wide angle lens - 17-55
d) u r a hobbist and u have another wide angle lens (e.g. 12-24 or 10-20 or 14-24) - 24-70

that's a good breakdown, as i'm in d), mostly using the 10-14mm range of sigma 10-20mm.

unfortunately all of these f/2.8 lens costs about the same.... not cheaper even though i can avoid the wide end of the lens.

 

[woolman]

i think i read somewhere in some other forum that the 24-70mm f2.8 is a better buy

 

[sammedia]

I still remember before the D3 came out,when everyone using only DX format, nobody asking 28-70 F2.8. In fact it is quite hard to even sell off the 28-70 F2.8.

But after the D3 is out, so many people who is still using DX format are keen in the new 24-70 F2.8 even thought they are not using D3.:bsmilie:

What's going on....:dunno::dunno::dunno:

 

[woolman]

I still remember before the D3 came out,when everyone using only DX format, nobody asking 28-70 F2.8. In fact it is quite hard to even sell off the 28-70 F2.8.

But after the D3 is out, so many people who is still using DX format are keen in the new 24-70 F2.8 even thought they are not using D3.:bsmilie:

What's going on....:dunno::dunno::dunno:

haha maybe it's lens envy

 

[zoossh]

i think i read somewhere in some other forum that the 24-70mm f2.8 is a better buy

just read more from KRW. almost close to a kg... how come no one seems to be concerned abt this.... ???

 

[woolman]

just read more from KRW. almost close to a kg... how come no one seems to be concerned abt this.... ???

maybe 1kg isn't as bad as some other lens at > 1kg?

 

[Henessy]

I still remember before the D3 came out,when everyone using only DX format, nobody asking 28-70 F2.8. In fact it is quite hard to even sell off the 28-70 F2.8.

But after the D3 is out, so many people who is still using DX format are keen in the new 24-70 F2.8 even thought they are not using D3.:bsmilie:

What's going on....:dunno::dunno::dunno:

May be some people find that 36mm is still considered quite usable as compared to 42mm, after the 1.5x crop factor. Given that a lot of pns camera out there have common wide angle focal length of 36mm...

 

[Spectrum]

If I were you, I will get the 24-70 f2.8.

This Nikon zoom lens barrel distortion at 24mm is terrible you know.:embrass:

 

[scaredcloud]

I still remember before the D3 came out,when everyone using only DX format, nobody asking 28-70 F2.8. In fact it is quite hard to even sell off the 28-70 F2.8.

But after the D3 is out, so many people who is still using DX format are keen in the new 24-70 F2.8 even thought they are not using D3.:bsmilie:

What's going on....:dunno::dunno:

And just look at the amount of 17-55 being thrown to the B&S, like DX is going to end soon.
:bsmilie::bsmilie:

I suggest go for the 17-55 TS, what you need now is more important than when you will do in the future. No point holding a superior lens while missing all the fantastic shots.

 

[D100S]

Just came back from up north. This shop was selling the above lense for equivalent $2380. Was tempted to get it. The salesperson said that it is not adviseable to use it on my d300. Is it true?

 

[satan_18349]

Maybe he was saying about the cropped factor?

 

[IONSOON]

wah, selling at 2380 , so cheap ah

 

[TMC]

why wouldnt it be good to use? as long as you know what you want any lens could be used on your D300.

 

[snapworks]

Read this post by kenrockwell, I think this is what he mean. Nonetheless, it's fully compatiable with DX camara just personally liking whether it fits your needs and bill.

Although it fits nicely in between your 12-24 and 70-200, but you already have 17-55; why would u wanna the 24-70?