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

[mazdadan]

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?

are you refering to malaysia where in malaysia you can get it at that price. thanks

 

[thingie]

when its mounted on a D3 you don't feel the weight as much the balance of the camera paired with a 1 kg+ lens like the 24-70 or 70-200 feels alright!

 

[thingie]

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

i do not really agree with your statement.

i did a mini review of the D3 with the 24-70 and there no significant barrel distortion.

http://shutterd.wordpress.com/2008/03/11/review-nikon-d3-24-70-f28/

all the pictures in the review except the last one was shot with the D3 and 24-70. they are uncropped and had minor post-processing.

 

[D100S]

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?

Good question... Just thought of selling my 17-55 and getting the 24-70... Itchy backside lah! Since the price is so good, thoughts like that added with the BBB virus can be damaging to the bank account.
At any rate, I will now try to convince meself(not myself!) that I should stick to my 17-55 and move on! Hehehe!!! (Thoughts like that normally end me up with a big Nikon bag and a depleted bank account!... and not to mention a series of attacks from the CO and Finance Minister.

 

[D100S]

are you refering to malaysia where in malaysia you can get it at that price. thanks

Sorry bro... for selfish reasons only understood by certain quarters of the civilised world, I will let you know the location after I have decided whether to get the lense or otherwise. Cos... only one piece left lah! Wait cause the already jammed causeway another big jam and the authorities looking for me intead of that other fell lah!
Its about a few hours drive from here - depending on your driving methods and the ride you are in! Cheers.

 

[lsisaxon]

Good question... Just thought of selling my 17-55 and getting the 24-70... Itchy backside lah! Since the price is so good, thoughts like that added with the BBB virus can be damaging to the bank account.
At any rate, I will now try to convince meself(not myself!) that I should stick to my 17-55 and move on! Hehehe!!! (Thoughts like that normally end me up with a big Nikon bag and a depleted bank account!... and not to mention a series of attacks from the CO and Finance Minister.

Wait till you get a D3 before thinking about the 24-70. ;p The 17-55 is more useful on a DX. Trust me. ;p

 

[Limsbros]

Wait till you get a D3 before thinking about the 24-70. ;p The 17-55 is more useful on a DX. Trust me. ;p

Agreed. 24-70 is best on D3 but not so for my D200.

 

[Spectrum]

i do not really agree with your statement.

i did a mini review of the D3 with the 24-70 and there no significant barrel distortion.

http://shutterd.wordpress.com/2008/03/11/review-nikon-d3-24-70-f28/

all the pictures in the review except the last one was shot with the D3 and 24-70. they are uncropped and had minor post-processing.

Just look at the 4th pic (last pic counting backwards) iso200, 24mm, f8.0, 1/800. Near the bottom portion. The grey & white tiles line shows prominent barrel distortion already.
Didn't you see that at such a small pic?:think:

 

[pianodancer]

Wait till you get a D3 before thinking about the 24-70. ;p The 17-55 is more useful on a DX. Trust me. ;p

It depends on what is the zoom range you need.

Is there a cheaper 24-70mm in the market that produces as good sharpness as this new Nikon one?

I personally switched from 17-55 to 24-70 because of the 'odd' range for 17-55. It's not wide enough (I have 12-24) and is not tele enough (I have 80-200). I'm not bothered with the FF capability. In fact, if there was a DX 24-70, I'd grab it since it'll be much lighter.

I've done non-scientific comparisons between 17-55 and 24-70 and they are both comparatively good. So whichever you choose should be based on the range you want and not so much on which lens has better quality.

 

[thingie]

Just look at the 4th pic (last pic counting backwards) iso200, 24mm, f8.0, 1/800. Near the bottom portion. The grey & white tiles line shows prominent barrel distortion already.
Didn't you see that at such a small pic?:think:

frankly i don't see the problem in barrel distortion. esp in that pic as it enhances the "grandness" of the building.

is there a lens that controls barrel distortion so well, you will never see converging lines? wouldn't it make more sense to learn to cope with it by post-processing it out or use it to your advantage?

 

[chngpe01]

Just look at the 4th pic (last pic counting backwards) iso200, 24mm, f8.0, 1/800. Near the bottom portion. The grey & white tiles line shows prominent barrel distortion already.
Didn't you see that at such a small pic?:think:

Barrel distortion will exist in every lens (except perspective control lens and large format) , it is a matter of the degree of distortion. In the case of the 24-70 f2.8, I actually find it rather well control and not terrible as you have put it.

Back to the topic.

I find that I still prefer the 17-55mm on my D200 rather than the 24-70. The 24 - 70 on the D200 with the 1.5x crop is not wide enough on a number of occasions, where I have to shoot in a smaller area.

While the same is not for the case of the 24-70 on the D3, it is as wide as the 17-55mm.

Hence there is some truth in the sales person statement. Though you still can use, it is just the suitability.

 

[chanjyj]

Barrel distortion will exist in every lens (except perspective control lens and large format) , it is a matter of the degree of distortion. In the case of the 24-70 f2.8, I actually find it rather well control and not terrible as you have put it.

Back to the topic.

I find that I still prefer the 17-55mm on my D200 rather than the 24-70. The 24 - 70 on the D200 with the 1.5x crop is not wide enough on a number of occasions, where I have to shoot in a smaller area.

While the same is not for the case of the 24-70 on the D3, it is as wide as the 17-55mm.

Hence there is some truth in the sales person statement. Though you still can use, it is just the suitability.

The 24-70 on the D3 has far less distortion at 24mm than the 17-55mm on a 1.5 crop at 17mm.

That said, I agree with chngpe that 24mm on a DX sensor is sometimes not wide enough, especially if you are trying to close focus and change the perspective.

 

[SnapSnap]

Actually before asking which lens is good, I would suggest that we should first ask what do we want to use the lens for.
Also do consider the weight and size...
Having held 17-55 for one whole day (rented it for my friend's wedding) I don't think I would buy it for my own use. Don't get me wrong, it is a very very good lens! But, it is really heavy when compared with the kit lens, I very nearly could not lift up the camera at the end of the day! :bsmilie:

Just my 2 cents...

 

[surge]

upgrading from a 18-70, either 17-35 or 17-55 is a HUGE jump in quality. some argued that 17-35 is better etc. unless you shoot bricks or newspaper, zoom in 100% to compare pixel to pixel, you will be hardpress to see the difference. bring your camera go to any 2nd handshop, shoot a 10 shots w 17-35 and 17-55 on similar subjects. then go home, if possible get someone to jumble up all the pics, if you can pick out which pic form which lens and have a preference to one, get the one. if cant tell, get the cheaper one( since cant tell difference anyway) or 17-55 since there is additional 20mm zoom and qualtiy is the same to you.

i have had the 17-35 and sold it for for 17-55. use if for wedding using DX. up to 8R print, the prints all look the sam eto me form both lens. the 35 may have a edge if you zoom in to compare at 100%, but non of the cleints do that, neither do i.

 

[Spectrum]

frankly i don't see the problem in barrel distortion. esp in that pic as it enhances the "grandness" of the building.

is there a lens that controls barrel distortion so well, you will never see converging lines? wouldn't it make more sense to learn to cope with it by post-processing it out or use it to your advantage?

Well, each to his/her own dude. Have fun...

 

[Joe1031]

So how about the difference in the price tag?

I was thinking 24-70 may be slightly higher in couple of hundreds?

 

[Spectrum]

So how about the difference in the price tag?

I was thinking 24-70 may be slightly higher in couple of hundreds?

The lens you mentioned is around S$2,450 - S$2,650 (I think).

 

[chanjyj]

Wait till you get a D3 before thinking about the 24-70. ;p The 17-55 is more useful on a DX. Trust me. ;p

concur

 

[mazdadan]

Sorry bro... for selfish reasons only understood by certain quarters of the civilised world, I will let you know the location after I have decided whether to get the lense or otherwise. Cos... only one piece left lah! Wait cause the already jammed causeway another big jam and the authorities looking for me intead of that other fell lah!
Its about a few hours drive from here - depending on your driving methods and the ride you are in! Cheers.

Yes it is OK let me know after you purchase it. Thanks.

 

[shark]

24-70 is a FF lens. You had only 36mm at the widest end if you are using 1.5x crop sensor. Unless your are going to upgrade to FF very soon, then i will recommand 24-70, if not 17-55 is a better choice.

Hi,

While reading this post. Something came to my mind. I'm using a D80 and I'm planning on the purchase of the 70-200 VR. Is this a FF lens?