# Nikon 17-35 vs 24-70



## Hooligan Dan (Jul 24, 2010)

Next month I'll be ordering a D3s which means I need to buy a new wide angle too. 

I've been shooting with the 17-55 on my D300 and I love it, but I do wish it was a little wider. 

My  choices are down to these two lenses. Since the 17-55 is really  more like 24/25 on the wide end(on the D300) the 24-70 makes the most  sense as that is basically the range I've been shooting for a long time. But when I pop that 24  on my D300 then I'm really losing the wide end. On the other hand I like  the idea of the 17-35 because of how wide it is(and will still be wide on the D300). But the older 17-35  probably doesn't have the IQ and as fast of focus the 24-70 does. 

Keep in mind I am a photojournalist so a lot of my time is spent up close to people shooting wide and shooting in tight areas. I'll be using both bodies and it would be nice to switch my wide and 70-200 between cameras without losing too much range. Another point for the 17-35 I guess. 

Anyway, what are your experiences with the lenses if you have any?


----------



## Josh220 (Jul 24, 2010)

Have you considered the 16-35? It's much sharper than the 17-35 and it's even a bit sharper than the 24-70 (which I own).


----------



## Hooligan Dan (Jul 24, 2010)

I'm not really a fan of the 16-35 because of the f/4. I know with the D3s the extra stop isn't needed because of the high iso performance, but I would rather have the 2.8 for the shallower dof.


----------



## kundalini (Jul 24, 2010)

Have you considered the 14-24mm f/2.8? It may be too wide for you, but it does perform.





 


100% crop


----------



## Hooligan Dan (Jul 24, 2010)

I do love the 14-24 but that gets in the area of being too wide for people. I'd also lose a lot of range between the 14-24 and 70-200(I rarely ever carry more than two lenses at an time). 

I also wouldn't be using the 14-24 to its full potential because I have no eye for landscape photography. :no smile:


----------



## shaunly (Jul 24, 2010)

If you already have the 70-200, it doesn't make sense to me to get a 24-70. 17-35, 50mm prime and 70-200 is pretty much all you need.


----------



## kundalini (Jul 24, 2010)

In that case, the 24-70mm + 70-200mm should work fine on a FF sensor like the D3s.  I use mine on the D700.  But then again, the 24mm may not be wide enough for you, but the perspective difference from a cropped sensor to a FF sensor is quite significant.  I've seen a lot of your stuff posted here on TPF and the wide side seems to work for you.  Consider renting each lens for a week before dropping coins.  (coins     .... now that a joke)


----------



## Helen B (Jul 24, 2010)

shaunly said:


> If you already have the 70-200, it doesn't make sense to me to get a 24-70. 17-35, 50mm prime and 70-200 is pretty much all you need.



I agree. Those three lenses, plus the 85 mm f/1.4 are what I carry for documentary work. The 17-35 is my most used lens of the group. It is plenty sharp enough for this kind of work and very flare resistant.

Best,
Helen


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jul 25, 2010)

I'd skip the 17-35. Even though it's got f/2.8, the 16-35 is in fact sharper wide open than the 17-35 at f/4.

What about the 24mm f/1.4? It's almost glued to my D700 since i got it, truly phenomenal.


----------



## shaunly (Jul 25, 2010)

Sw1tchFX said:


> What about the 24mm f/1.4? It's almost glued to my D700 since i got it, truly phenomenal.



I envy you... :er:


----------



## Hooligan Dan (Jul 25, 2010)

After looking more into it I've decided to cut the 17-35 and consider the 16-35 vs 24-70. Both have there pros and cons.
*
16-35*

Pros: Wide, very sharp, VR, will still be wide on my D300
Cons: F/4 will be slow on the D300, especially if I'm in poor lighting and have to freeze action. Dof won't be as shallow as f/2.8

*24-70

*Pros: Very sharp, equivalent to the 17-55 I have been shooting on my D300 for a long time now. f/2.8
Cons: Won't be wide at all when on D300. 

After listing that stuff out I'm now leaning towards the 16-35. It will be slow on the D300, but if I really need to stop action in a low-light situation then obviously I just put it on the D3s instead. And if I really want the shallow dof I have my 50 f/1.4 for that.


----------



## Helen B (Jul 25, 2010)

Does the ability to focus in very low light matter to you? That's one reason to prefer a faster lens over a slower, and it is where the D3 and D3s fail to achieve perfection as cameras for very low light in my opinion, anyway.

Best,
Helen


----------



## Mike_E (Jul 25, 2010)

Is a 50mm prime too big to carry?  It seems to me that even a 50mm f1.8 in your pocket would bridge the gap pretty well.


----------



## Hooligan Dan (Jul 25, 2010)

Mike_E said:


> Is a 50mm prime too big to carry?  It seems to me that even a 50mm f1.8 in your pocket would bridge the gap pretty well.



It's not too big to carry but I do have limited space on how much I can carry. I generally only take my 50 1.4 when I think I might need it. That's not very often. I tend to use it more for private portraits and less for news. 

I am retiring the SU-800 so that could free up space to carry the 50.


----------



## shaunly (Jul 25, 2010)

Helen B said:


> Does the ability to focus in very low light matter to you? That's one reason to prefer a faster lens over a slower, and it is where the D3 and D3s fail to achieve perfection as cameras for very low light in my opinion, anyway.
> 
> Best,
> Helen



Can you elaborate on this? To my understanding the D3/D3s are great if not the best at AF in low lighting


----------

