# DX users.... 17-55 2.8 or 24-70 2.8?



## eric-holmes (Feb 2, 2012)

I have just sold my 70-200 with the intent of getting a shorter zoom. My initial thought was 17-55 2.8 but the only thing that is holding me back would be the possibility of going full frame. But, I don't even know when of IF that will happen. I am just looking to get a little feedback from the people that use either.

If you have the 24-70, do you wish you had more room on the short end?


----------



## bhop (Feb 2, 2012)

I've got a 17-55 and the focal length range is great.  I have a 24mm D fixed lens, which is close to a 35mm equivalent and just judging from that, a 24-70 wouldn't be wide enough for what I like to shoot with digital.


----------



## eric-holmes (Feb 2, 2012)

I also figure that if I really need that extra 15mm in zoom, I could just crop in on the edit. But, you cant uncrop and zoom out in an edit. Sometimes you just can't back up anymore.


----------



## Michiyo-Fir (Feb 2, 2012)

I chose a 24-70 over a 17-55 but mainly because I rarely shoot scenery and also it's easy to pick up a cheap wide angle.  I do mainly portraits so the extra zoom is nice and I also plan to upgrade to full frame in the future so the 24-70 is beautiful on a full frame camera!


----------



## mjhoward (Feb 2, 2012)

"going full frame" -  all the cool kids are doing it.  17-55 provides a similar FOV on a crop body as the 24-70 on a FF.  If it were me, I'd get a used 17-55 and then sell it IF the day came where I 'went full frame'.  You won't take much of a hit, if at all, buying used.


----------



## Erik638 (Feb 2, 2012)

I chose 24-70. I wish it was a bit longer. When I need wide angle I put on my tokina 11-16. You should really look at what you are shooting and past pictures to find the most useful focal length for you.


----------



## KmH (Feb 2, 2012)

24-70, and a 14-24.


----------



## thinkricky (Feb 2, 2012)

17mm I'm bummin cause I can't get the right shots.


----------



## IgsEMT (Feb 2, 2012)

As much as I preferred using 24-70 on the dx, there were times when 24mm was too tight for me and wish I had, at that moment, my 17-55 w/ me. On the same note, when using 24-70 on Dx body, it was PERFECT for portrait work and I didn't have the need to swap glass.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 2, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> "going full frame" -  all the cool kids are doing it.  17-55 *provides a similar FOV on a crop body* as the 24-70 on a FF.  If it were me, I'd get a used 17-55 and then sell it IF the day came where I 'went full frame'.  You won't take much of a hit, if at all, buying used.



50mm is 50mm no matter what "view" we have, but not a similar image. If you're shooting people its best to stay above 50mm unless they are silly skinny and you want them to pudge no matter crop job or not.

when i had my D7000 crop i shot a 24-70 and 90% of the time it was at the longer end. I shoot more people that landscape, and even landscape I like the compression of the longer lens over the distortion


----------



## eric-holmes (Feb 2, 2012)

I usually hate when I post these kinds of threads. Mostly because they just confuse me more so than before I started. But you guys have just about convinced me to go 24-70. I mostly shoot senior portrait, but I wanted something that would almost double as a walk around lens. But even still on my 18-105 kit lens, I find myself rarely shooting at 18mm.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 2, 2012)

eric-holmes said:


> I usually hate when I post these kinds of threads. Mostly because they just confuse me more so than before I started. But you guys have just about convinced me to go 24-70. I mostly shoot senior *portrait*, but I wanted something that would almost double as a walk around lens. But even still on my 18-105 kit lens, I find myself rarely shooting at 18mm.



You convinced yourself right there!


----------



## bhop (Feb 2, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> > "going full frame" -  all the cool kids are doing it.  17-55 *provides a similar FOV on a crop body* as the 24-70 on a FF.  If it were me, I'd get a used 17-55 and then sell it IF the day came where I 'went full frame'.  You won't take much of a hit, if at all, buying used.
> ...



I hate it when people try to get technical and post crap like this because _you know what he means_.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 2, 2012)

bhop said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > mjhoward said:
> ...



The field of view is the same as he said, but the distortion and lens characteristics are a whole 'nuther ball game. Nothing really technical about it.


----------



## bhop (Feb 2, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> bhop said:
> 
> 
> > 2WheelPhoto said:
> ...


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 2, 2012)

bhop said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > bhop said:
> ...


----------



## bhop (Feb 2, 2012)

*high five


----------



## eric-holmes (Feb 2, 2012)

Ok, back on track. But then the more I think about it, all of you FF guys do just fine with your 24-70's which would be like me having a 17-55. And, it would save me close to $400.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 2, 2012)

eric-holmes said:


> Ok, back on track. But then the more I think about it, all of you FF guys do just fine with your 24-70's which would be like me having a 17-55. And, it would save me close to $400.



Again, full frame or not, the lens behaves the same at exactly 50mm.  If you are shooting portraits as you suggested mostly, you want to be 50 and above, no matter if the sensor in the back is a FF or crop =)

With my D7000 I used the 70mm long end 99.9% more than the 24mm end for that reason alone.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 2, 2012)

Adorama has an interesting write up on focal length.  Again no matter what sensor you use, a lens still has same characteristics.  For portraiture as you suggested note "the wider the lens, the bigger the nose":



> Your lens&#8217;s focal length has an effect  on the quality of the portraits you take. If it&#8217;s shorter than 70mm you  risk subtle (or not so subtle) distortion of facial features (the wider  the lens, the bigger the nose) and too much information in the  background. If it&#8217;s longer than 135mm, visual compression can make your  subjects appear flat. So, anything in the 70-135mm range is good. The  80-105mm range is even better, and will show your subject more  naturally.   Top Portrait Lenses from Adorama Learning Center



I will agree the rules can be broken, of course but thats the deal above. For the skinny models in the pro studios I've been fortunate to visit around Tampa, the 50mm prime is common.  But I was warned not to go any lower than 50mm for portraits.


----------



## xyphoto (Feb 2, 2012)

Sounds like you already made up your mind. But you still want to see what other people would suggest. I think 17-55 will meet your needs if you are going full frame in the near future. However, your mind may change when D800 comes out.


----------



## newb (Feb 2, 2012)

I love my 17-55 on my D7000. Most of the time, Im on the short end though.

What were your reasons for selling the 70-200? Were you constantly jammed at 70mm?


----------



## Markw (Feb 2, 2012)

Well, I shoot with a D300s.  I bought the 24-70 from the 18-50/2.8 (probably going with the D800 shortly).  With the 18-50/2.8, it was plenty wide, but was too short for my liking.  With the 24-70, it doesn't go wide enough for my liking, but does go out to 70mm.  Which, I've found, I still wish it could go a bit longer.  That being said, I dont think they currently make an 18-105/2.8.  So, I'll have to deal.  

On DX, if you can't see yourself going FX anytime in the foreseeable future, I'd stick with the 17-55.  If you think you'll be going FX within..id say..1.5-2 years, I'd just go with the 24-70 and learn to deal.  Or, like said previously, go with the 24-70 and 14-24.  ORRRRR 17-35 (FX) Nikon and 50/1.4 Sigma.  Just a thought. 

Mark

EDIT: I wish they made a 16-85/2.8 VRII.  That'd be perfect.  But I could imagine the size, weight, and priceeee.

Mark


----------



## eric-holmes (Feb 2, 2012)

newb said:


> I love my 17-55 on my D7000. Most of the time, Im on the short end though.What were your reasons for selling the 70-200? Were you constantly jammed at 70mm?


It was the shear size of the lens along with it being such a huge chunk of money sitting in my bag. I used to use it a lot more for portraits but ever since ingot my 85 1.4 I haven't hardly used it.


----------



## mjhoward (Feb 2, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> > "going full frame" -  all the cool kids are doing it.  17-55 *provides a similar FOV on a crop body* as the 24-70 on a FF.  If it were me, I'd get a used 17-55 and then sell it IF the day came where I 'went full frame'.  You won't take much of a hit, if at all, buying used.
> ...



What the hell are you talking about?  I never said the focal length changed, that would be silly.  I said it provides a similar Field of View.  I know Cambridge in Color is a respected site so here you go: Digital Camera Sensor Sizes: How it Influences Your Photography

Excerpt: "Similarly, the focal length multiplier relates the focal length of a lens used on a smaller format to a 35 mm lens producing an equivalent angle of view, and is equal to the crop factor. This means that a 50 mm lens used on a sensor with a 1.6X crop factor would produce the *same field of view* as a 1.6 x 50 = 80 mm lens on a 35 mm full frame sensor.*"
*
I never said anything about the image being similar, DOF, or anything else other than FOV.  Pick an argument elsewhere.


----------



## mjhoward (Feb 2, 2012)

BTW, lens distortion (barrel and pincussion) is VERY easy to fix and should be mostly a non issue.  In fact, if you are buying the name brand, most new cameras will correct all distortion in camera as well as your PP software for you.


----------



## newb (Feb 2, 2012)

eric-holmes said:


> newb said:
> 
> 
> > I love my 17-55 on my D7000. Most of the time, Im on the short end though.What were your reasons for selling the 70-200? Were you constantly jammed at 70mm?
> ...



Fair enough.

Like I said, with my 17-55 Im usually on the wide end. There have been times when Ive had my 70-200 mounted, and wished I had a little less than 70mm. But, I have never had my 17-55 mounted and wished I had a little more zoom. If that makes any sense at all lol.


----------



## mjhoward (Feb 2, 2012)

newb said:


> eric-holmes said:
> 
> 
> > newb said:
> ...



Thats why they created the 50-135 
Similar FOV on DX as 70-200 on FX.  And yes... thats correct.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 2, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> BTW, lens distortion (barrel and pincussion) is VERY easy to fix and should be mostly a non issue.  In fact, if you are buying the name brand, most new cameras will correct all distortion in camera as well as your PP software for you.



I think you'll agree software, whether in cam or post wont change the compression/DOF/blowing out the background/bokeh.

No matter how you stack it up, the portrait is better shot with the right gear. Sure we can compensate for this and that to save a dollar or two. We can shoot portraits with the 11-16mm if we want to look at it like that.


----------



## mjhoward (Feb 2, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> > BTW, lens distortion (barrel and pincussion) is VERY easy to fix and should be mostly a non issue.  In fact, if you are buying the name brand, most new cameras will correct all distortion in camera as well as your PP software for you.
> ...



You crack me up.  You JUST got your D700 less than 3 months ago... get off your high horse.  You even tried to make an argument out of something I didn't even say, just so you could tout your new FF experience and how superior it is.  There's nothing wrong with shooting a crop body and in some cases it is preferable.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 2, 2012)

mjhoward said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > mjhoward said:
> ...



My D700 is really no big deal to me, but the 24-70 and 70-200 is. 

I'm looking forward to a D700S or D800 or whatever is coming down the line truthfully. And I still enjoy my old boat anchor D80.


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Feb 3, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> > 2WheelPhoto said:
> ...



Have to say 2wheel, I am agreeing with your view of FX in certain respects. I am beginning to be frustrated with the compromise of using DX, I really like the idea of using my lenses how they were meant to be used when built. But I know DX has some advantages by that same token. I am wondering whether I might consider a D700 when the price drops.


----------



## eric-holmes (Feb 3, 2012)

Thanks for everyones input.


----------



## bhop (Feb 3, 2012)

I don't see what's so frustrating about DX.  Just think of your lenses as whatever FOV that the crop sensor converts it to instead of what it actually is _supposed_ to be and you're good.  If I want to shoot at around 24mm FOV, i'll shoot with at 17mm on my dx, 300mm?  Use the 200, etc..  I don't see it as a compromise, more of a mental adjustment.  If it really bugs you so much, then save up for an FX body.


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Feb 3, 2012)

bhop said:


> I don't see what's so frustrating about DX.  Just think of your lenses as whatever FOV that the crop sensor converts it to instead of what it actually is _supposed_ to be and you're good.  If I want to shoot at around 24mm FOV, i'll shoot with at 17mm on my dx, 300mm?  Use the 200, etc..  I don't see it as a compromise, more of a mental adjustment.  If it really bugs you so much, then save up for an FX body.



I am making a very VALID point that I would like the chance to use a prime lens the way they were built to be used, I like the added bonus of extra depth of field control etc.. my point was that I like the idea of using one of Nikon's specialist primes and watching it come to life on an FX body. That was the point I was making! You seem to have misread my post somewhere along the lines?


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Feb 3, 2012)

+1. Josh many still think its about "field of view".  If thats all it was about I'd have never wanted FF I'd have just continued to back up a little bit =)


----------



## bhop (Feb 3, 2012)

Nikon_Josh said:


> bhop said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see what's so frustrating about DX.  Just think of your lenses as whatever FOV that the crop sensor converts it to instead of what it actually is _supposed_ to be and you're good.  If I want to shoot at around 24mm FOV, i'll shoot with at 17mm on my dx, 300mm?  Use the 200, etc..  I don't see it as a compromise, more of a mental adjustment.  If it really bugs you so much, then save up for an FX body.
> ...



Ok.. my point is valid too..  IF IT BUGS YOU SO MUCH, SAVE FOR AN FX BODY

Honestly, I shoot a few of the same lenses on my D200/300 and my F100/F4s.  The difference isn't as much as you guys want to believe it is.


----------



## cannpope (Feb 3, 2012)

I used to have a Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS HSM on my D7000 and it was a perfect pair.  It stayed on my camera about 90% of the time.  It's a very good lens for much less than the Nikkor 17-55.


----------



## eric-holmes (Feb 3, 2012)

Drum roll......


I went with the 17-55. I figured if I wanted to go longer and compress the background more, I would just use the 85 1.4. Plus, it saved me about $400.


----------



## newb (Feb 3, 2012)

You wont regret it!


----------



## Markw (Feb 3, 2012)

+1

Mark


----------

