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

[blazer_workz]

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

 

[conquer500]

Can elaborate where?

• MTF charts show both are roughly on par.
• Vignetting also ok, except 17-35 vignettes at 25mm with 0.8EV rather than 17mm (weird, but data is from photozone.de, a site I trust).
• CA is worse on 17-55, but not by a large margin

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.

 

[lsisaxon]

Wah. First time I have come across criticism of 17-55mm. I thought 17-35 and 24-70 would be roughly be on par with it.

Now must go borrow some lens and see exactly how much sharper and brighter the 17-35 is compared to the 17-55 (citing Lumiere).

I've handled 17-35mm, but never touched the 17-55mm so I cannot say much.

At least I know that at wide open aperture, the 17-55/2.8 is sharper corner to corner on DX than Angenieux 28-70/2.6 on FX.

 

[chanjyj]

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.

So if you use my points then CA and vignetting will cancel each other out (since MTF is similiar)

then the only thing you can say bad about the 17-55mm is the build and slight distortion (hey-wider range=more distortion lah)?

 

[audreyJGJM]

I used the 17~55mm f/2.8 before and now using the 17~35mm f/2.8 for sometime already. Previously, my comments are based on my experiences.

However, in term of range usable, definitely the 17~55mm f/2.8 at a bit of advantage over the 17~55mm f/2.8. Thus ask yourself what you want and plan for your own personal system.

But still, to my point of view, for events shooting, 17~35mm f/2.8 still a bit wide as compare to the 24~70mm f/2.8 & 28~70mm f/2.8. Of course you still can use the 17~35mm f/2.8 but your leg work harder lor.

 

[yyD70S]

MTF charts show both are roughly on par. QUOTE]


MTF, while not everything, shows that the 17-55mm DX to be superior to he 17-35mm.

 

[lumin008]

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.

 

[tribal.snake]

this thread is kinda OT liao...
but still...

i have used both and tested the 24-70
if u are gonna blow up the pics and pixel peep then go with the 17-35
general use such as wedding, events etc, 17-55 is more then sufficient
the 24-70, well i didn't have a FX body to test on
but my gut feel is that it depends largely on ur style of shooting, ur body and whether u consider 24 to be wide enough.

 

[blazer_workz]

this thread is kinda OT liao...
but still...

i have used both and tested the 24-70
if u are gonna blow up the pics and pixel peep then go with the 17-35
general use such as wedding, events etc, 17-55 is more then sufficient
the 24-70, well i didn't have a FX body to test on
but my gut feel is that it depends largely on ur style of shooting, ur body and whether u consider 24 to be wide enough.

:bsmilie: you r right abt the OT..

but i still got to say..Nikon Lenses Rocks!!!
Every lens is unique..because the focal length are all different..unless u r comparing between 2 lens of same focal length say 18-55 I and 18-55 II..or 24-120 and 24-120VR..

 

[SKCS07]

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 am rather curious about the distortion you mention of the 17-55. What is the 'horrible' thing about it? Is it geometric distortion? Can you tell from a normal picture, say a portrait or a landscape shoot?

I am still trying to learn how much lens distortion is required before it is rather obvious to most people at one glance. So far, I wouldn't be able to tell unless I am shooting architectural stuff with straight lines. Even then, it is not easy unless I compare uncorrected version with corrected version using DxO Optics.

Thanks in advance for any insight!

 

[Jed]

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...

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).

 

[conquer500]

I am rather curious about the distortion you mention of the 17-55. What is the 'horrible' thing about it? Is it geometric distortion? Can you tell from a normal picture, say a portrait or a landscape shoot?

I am still trying to learn how much lens distortion is required before it is rather obvious to most people at one glance. So far, I wouldn't be able to tell unless I am shooting architectural stuff with straight lines. Even then, it is not easy unless I compare uncorrected version with corrected version using DxO Optics.

Thanks in advance for any insight!

you can see the distortion easily on that lens on any photo. one glance is more then enough for people to complain about the distortion.

 

[blazer_workz]

you can see the distortion easily on that lens on any photo. one glance is more then enough for people to complain about the distortion.

yes..especially on the wide end..

 

[Jed]

you can see the distortion easily on that lens on any photo. one glance is more then enough for people to complain about the distortion.

Thom Hogan's comment on distortion on the 17-55:

Distortion performance is good. At both ends there's measurable distortion (barrel at the wide end, pincushion at the telephoto), but it's low in amount and not as obvious as we've seen in some other Nikkor designs. This isn't an architectural lens, but nor is it a fun-house lens, either.

Taken from his review.

Also, btw, "you can see the distortion easily on that lens on any photo"? Like, a picture of a ball against a plain background? Extreme example yes, but you said any photo, which is a bit of an extreme claim.

 

[TMC]

let's not get too picky about the comments. Since everything that is written in this forum has to be taken with a pinch of salt. But 17-55 on the wide end does show the noticeable distortion.

 

[tribal.snake]

that's if u blow up every picture or if u do archtecture work.
the distortion is quite ok.

the only issuse i had is that the 17-55 is a g-lens.

 

[Jed]

let's not get too picky about the comments. Since everything that is written in this forum has to be taken with a pinch of salt. But 17-55 on the wide end does show the noticeable distortion.

I'm not getting picky, but when someone makes sweeping statements I just feel it needs balancing; like "you can see distortion on any image"... that's simply not true.

Again with the extreme examples, but that's like saying, the 17-35 is better than any other lens, you can use it for any purpose, and you can take any picture you want with it. It's better than a lot of other lenses, yes. You can use it for a lot of purposes, yes. You can take a good number of different pictures you can dream up with it. I'm not denying that by any stretch of the imagination like I'm not denying the 17-55 has distortion nor that the 17-35 is a stellar lens.

The whole problem with this everything has to be taken with a pinch of salt thing is, it's good advice, but using it as an excuse for shoddy and exaggerated claims... well, isn't an excuse.

 

[TMC]

oh well, guess everyone's boiling point is different.

Back to the topic.

 

[lukesky]

Every lens is unique..because the focal length are all different..unless u r comparing between 2 lens of same focal length say 18-55 I and 18-55 II..or 24-120 and 24-120VR..

Bingo,comparing the 17-35 FX and 17-55 DX lens with diff focal lengths is already an apple to orange comparison.

Anyway different strokes for different folks, different lens for different events.

 

[mcn]

aq12345

let me tell U

U say u useing d70s... u ask which better buy = 17-55mm vs 24-70mm... u say may consister d300

then i say 17-55mm better buy (based on what u sway)

reasons based on post #2, #8, #18