# nikon 17-55 f2.8 OR 24-70mm f2.8



## RONDAL (Mar 11, 2010)

i'm shooting a D90 and D300.  So crop sensors.  I don't think im ever gonna go FF, as i dont really think I need it.  I dont do weddings or low light, and i dont really need SUPER wide.


i shoot everything from portrait, to cars, to landscape.  I currently have a 10-20mm wide, a 50mm, and a 18-200mm.

I know i need a 70-200mm f2.8 for stuff, and that will be coming down the road.  But right now my biggest issue is not having a zoom that is quick and sharp for portraits.  The 50mm is good but has its limitations.

Given the 2 choices, what would you guys suggest.  The price between them is about $300, the 24-70 being a little more.  bviously if i ever went FF the 24-70 would be able to hold.  Resale wise they both seem to hold their value pretty well.

Im just slightly torn.  I know about the weird focal lengths you get with the crop sensor and the 24-70, but im wondering if its enough of a reason NOT to get that lens.


Your thoughts/comments


----------



## bentcountershaft (Mar 12, 2010)

Since you already have the 10-20 I don't see a reason not to get the 24-70.


----------



## wiredhernandez (Mar 12, 2010)

I was facing a similar decision and considering the cost of the lens I opted for 24-70 to assure I could upgrade to FF. 24 is pretty decent on the short end I and just work within the confines of my rig knowing that I will never have to re purchase lenses for a new cam...


----------



## swoop_ds (Mar 12, 2010)

24-70


----------



## Mike_E (Mar 12, 2010)

Ditto! 24-70mm!  The good numbers for portraits don't even start until 50.


----------



## boomer (Mar 12, 2010)

I have the Nikon 24-70 on my D90 and love it! just like you, i have a wide angle that covers 12-24, so I had no reason to buy the Nikon 17-55.

You will love it!


----------



## TJ K (Mar 12, 2010)

The 70-200 to many is probably one of the best all around portrait lenses just to let you know. I would go with the 17-55 if you don't plan on going to FX because it is like a 24-70 with the crop factor. But my first choice would be a 70-200 then the 17-55 if you don't want FX.
TJ


----------



## RONDAL (Mar 12, 2010)

Mike_E said:


> Ditto! 24-70mm! The good numbers for portraits don't even start until 50.


 

while this is true on FF, when you're using a crop sensor it doesn't hold as much.

i guess the response is all for the 24-70.


----------



## KmH (Mar 12, 2010)

Mike_E said:


> Ditto! 24-70mm! The good numbers for portraits don't even start until 50.


and extend all the way beyond 200 mm.

I would be looking at the AF 80-200 f/2.8 for now myself (about $850 for a *good* used 2-ring version) and sell the 18-200. I've made it well known I have a low opinion of the image quality of the 18-200mm lens, for the price.


----------



## cnutco (Mar 12, 2010)

The 24-70 f2.8 is my next lens.

That's my vote.


----------



## clockwurk (Mar 12, 2010)

24-70 for sure


----------



## Vinny (Mar 14, 2010)

I was under the impression that the lens should be about 105mm for portraits. In film, a 50 mm lens is about our eyesite looking at the subject. A 105mm lens gets the camera far enough away along with lighting equipment to not crowd the subject and not too big to handle. I don't know if there is a zoom range these days that stops at a middle of the road focal length wise but I would try a higher focal length.


----------



## Mike_E (Mar 14, 2010)

Hi guys, it's not about the field of view, it's about the subject being flat as it hits the sensor.  Do a little test, take a photo of yourself with the widest lens you have and crop out your face so that you have the same field of view as a 75mm lens (a 50 with the crop factor). Then take one of yourself (or the same subject anyway) with an actual 100(ish)mm lens and compare the two photos.  It's easier to see with the very wide angle but is still there as you go up.  50mm is about where the image starts to flatten, 85 is where it starts to be good.  300 is great.



OK, it's really about the circle of confusion but I'll leave others to explain that.


----------



## Josh220 (Apr 13, 2010)

Was a decision ever made? 

I have a Nikon 12-24mm so the 24-70 seems to be a better fit. However, 17-55mm lenses seem to be up for sale more often so I could get one for half the price and I don't know if 24mm is wide enough compared to 17mm. 

Nikon 70-200mm is somewhere in the future.


----------



## mdtusz (Apr 13, 2010)

The holy trinity is the way to go. I one day aspire to have them all... a boy can dream.


----------



## Josh220 (Apr 13, 2010)

mdtusz said:


> The holy trinity is the way to go. I one day aspire to have them all... a boy can dream.



Aside from my wide angle lens being the 12-24 f/4 and not the 14-24 f/2.8, yes it would be. 

My concern with the 24-70 is that it is such a good mid-range lens, that I worry it is too perfectly placed within it's focal lengths. Is the 24mm end not wide enough, and is the 70mm end not long enough?


----------



## cnutco (Apr 13, 2010)

Some people have sadi that the 70 - 200 is good for portrait.  Is this lens not too big and heavy for portrait?

I will be taking pictures of my daughter this week for prom.  I was planning to use my 50, but I will have my 70 - 200 in my bag.  

Should I use the 70 -200 instead of the 50???


----------



## mdtusz (Apr 13, 2010)

Josh220 said:


> mdtusz said:
> 
> 
> > The holy trinity is the way to go. I one day aspire to have them all... a boy can dream.
> ...



I know that  I didn't see your post above.


----------



## Josh220 (Apr 13, 2010)

Focal length aside, is there a huge difference in image quality between the 17-55 /2.8 and 24-70 /2.8? 

I am even debating getting the 70-200 before I get one of these. In which case I don't know if it would make any logical sense whatsoever to get anything other than the 24-70 since I will have 12-24 and 70-200 covered. :er:


----------



## fokker (Apr 14, 2010)

Josh220 said:


> mdtusz said:
> 
> 
> > Is the 24mm end not wide enough, and is the 70mm end not long enough?
> ...


----------



## jeff000 (Apr 16, 2010)

KmH said:


> I would be looking at the AF 80-200 f/2.8 for now myself (about $850 for a *good* used 2-ring version) and sell the 18-200. I've made it well known I have a low opinion of the image quality of the 18-200mm lens, for the price.



I agree, the 18-200 should go, its a great carry all for a tourist. But once you go any high end lens the 18-200 should be retired. 
The 80-200 f2.8 is a great lens. If you shoot outside or with strobes anyways then the VR isn't really going to make a difference. 
Most of my shooting with the 80-200 is outside and at 1/2000+ shutter, VR doesn't make a difference at that point. If you shoot sports indoors or low light, night then the VR can be nice. 




Vinny said:


> I was under the impression that the lens should be about 105mm for portraits. In film, a 50 mm lens is about our eyesite looking at the subject. A 105mm lens gets the camera far enough away along with lighting equipment to not crowd the subject and not too big to handle. I don't know if there is a zoom range these days that stops at a middle of the road focal length wise but I would try a higher focal length.



The best portrait lens is the lens that gets you the effect you want. 
That said most people can't really tell when a shot is taken with my 17-55 f2.8 or my 80-200 f2.8 or the 85 f1.8. When shooting models I am mostly in the f6.3 type range. 




cnutco said:


> Some people have sadi that the 70 - 200 is good for portrait.  Is this lens not too big and heavy for portrait?
> 
> Should I use the 70 -200 instead of the 50???



You need room for the 70-200, keep that in mind, I use the 80-200 when I am shooting outside and know the location only otherwise I feel handicapped by its space requirements at times. 




Josh220 said:


> Focal length aside, is there a huge difference in image quality between the 17-55 /2.8 and 24-70 /2.8?
> 
> I am even debating getting the 70-200 before I get one of these. In which case I don't know if it would make any logical sense whatsoever to get anything other than the 24-70 since I will have 12-24 and 70-200 covered. :er:



Not a noticeable difference in quality. The extra 15mm on the long end can be made up by your feet easier then the 7mm on the short end. 
I like the 17-55 over the 24-70 for what I shoot, although the 24-70 I only had a chance to play with for a couple days.


----------



## dhilberg (Apr 17, 2010)

If you're thinking about the Nikon 17-55, but want the best image quality, pass on it and get the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 HSM Macro. It's sharper than the Nikon 17-55, focuses much closer, but is only 1/3 the price of the Nikon. I have the Sigma and it's excellent. The Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 is great also.

If build quality is a concern, then get the Nikon.


----------



## Josh220 (Apr 17, 2010)

I wish I was comfortable buying 3rd party lenses. Quality is never the same, and regardless of reviews I can't see them ever being sharper. Close, perhaps... But never more than.


----------



## Formatted (Apr 17, 2010)

Why get the 24-70. Get the 50mm its like half the price. And just move backwards and forwards to make it a 24 - 70!

Spend the money on something else like a 18-200!


----------



## dhilberg (Apr 17, 2010)

Josh220 said:


> I wish I was comfortable buying 3rd party lenses. Quality is never the same, and regardless of reviews I can't see them ever being sharper. Close, perhaps... But never more than.



The reviews speak otherwise about the Sigma. You can ignore those I guess, but that's just silly and starts to sound like blind devotion.

You're safe buying Nikon only (generally), but there are 3rd party gems out there that are excellent, and superior to the OEM counterparts (like the Sigma 18-50). No point in spending $1200 on a lens when you can pick up one that performs better for only $420.

But if you have that kind of money to burn, then by all means...


----------



## D-B-J (Apr 17, 2010)

Sometimes 3rd party is much better than nikons own.  For example, i was looking into all of the nikon wide-angle lenses, and i read many places that for a DX format camera, the one to get is the tokina 11-16mm.  IT outperforms nikons 14-24 f4, for DX.


----------



## Josh220 (Apr 17, 2010)

Formatted said:


> Why get the 24-70. Get the 50mm its like half the price. And just move backwards and forwards to make it a 24 - 70!
> 
> Spend the money on something else like a 18-200!




The 18-200 is a good walk-around lens for convenience purposes, but it's not a super sharp lens. I may sell mine after I get the 70-200 and 24-70. 

I have been doing a lot of research and watching videos on YouTube that compare the 24-70 to the 17-55 and it's a fairly common  conclusion that the 24-70 is noticeably sharper.

The thing I often find with 3rd party lenses is that they will have 40 or 50 reviews that average 4-4.5 stars. A lens like the 24-70 has 400-500 reviews that average 5 stars.


----------



## RONDAL (Apr 18, 2010)

Formatted said:


> Why get the 24-70. Get the 50mm its like half the price. And just move backwards and forwards to make it a 24 - 70!
> 
> Spend the money on something else like a 18-200!


 

another gem of wisdom :lmao::lmao:

pass on argueably one of nikons sharpest and best lenses for a lens that is slower and softer.  

i have all 3 of the lenses you are referring to and can safely say the 24-70 and the 18-200 are in different leagues.
dont get me wrong i love my 18-200 when i travel as its versatile and means i can get away with one lens on the trip.  but its not sharp by any means, and its not got a constant aperture either.


----------



## Josh220 (Apr 18, 2010)

RONDAL said:


> Formatted said:
> 
> 
> > Why get the 24-70. Get the 50mm its like half the price. And just move backwards and forwards to make it a 24 - 70!
> ...



This. 

I may never sell my 18-200 because it's still a versatile lens, but it's not incredibly sharp. 

Here is a good video I came across. At about 4:07 he starts to go over his review of the 17-55 vs. 24-70.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8RuKD2vTr4[/ame]


----------



## dhilberg (Apr 18, 2010)

If you're serious about shooting with the 18-200 then keep it around f/11. It's very sharp stopped down in that range. It does have some wicked distortion at the wide end that doesn't correct completely in post. Pretty soft at 200mm too, especially wide open. It's convenient, but has too many drawbacks for me. I sold mine last summer.

The 24-70 is one of the sharpest Nikon zooms ever.


----------



## kami (Apr 21, 2010)

Josh220 said:


> I wish I was comfortable buying 3rd party lenses. Quality is never the same, and regardless of reviews I can't see them ever being sharper. Close, perhaps... But never more than.


 
Check out some of my pics on this thread. I used the Sigma 18-50 HSM. 

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/beyond-basics/200601-problem-color.html

Photos are a little soft IMHO but for 1/3 the price I'm more than happy with what I got. Pluse I'm using a jurassic D80 that's had 2 hard drops (1 drop with the Sigma lense on and it broke the CPL that was on it) and countless bang-ups so I'm lucky it still holds up.


----------



## Josh220 (Apr 22, 2010)

kami said:


> Josh220 said:
> 
> 
> > I wish I was comfortable buying 3rd party lenses. Quality is never the same, and regardless of reviews I can't see them ever being sharper. Close, perhaps... But never more than.
> ...



Not bad at all!

There is nothing wrong with buying 3rd party lenses, I just personally don't feel comfortable with them. I am not comfortable buying used lenses either; just personal preference. There are a few "gems" out there but not many. The price is what draws most people to them, and that is totally fine. Nothing wrong with saving $$ if it's just a hobby. People are very quick to jump on those who have anything negative to say about 3rd party lenses (not meaning you). In most cases I feel as if they are just justifying their purchase to themselves. There is a reason why pro's don't shoot them, but that doesn't mean they should be overlooked. 

This is not meant to start a flame-war, it's merely my views on it.


I ordered my Nikon 24-70mm. It will be here Friday


----------



## kami (Apr 22, 2010)

Nice purchase! You can't go wrong with that. Coincidentally, I just ordered a Sigma 10-20mm f3.5, and a Sigma 100-300mm f4, one B&W CPL for both lenses that have a 82mm head and black rapid camera strap. 

I'm keeping the D80 though until it can't shoot no more! lol D300s is in the near future.


----------



## Josh220 (Apr 22, 2010)

kami said:


> Nice purchase! You can't go wrong with that. Coincidentally, I just ordered a Sigma 10-20mm f3.5, and a Sigma 100-300mm f4, one B&W CPL for both lenses that have a 82mm head and black rapid camera strap.
> 
> I'm keeping the D80 though until it can't shoot no more! lol D300s is in the near future.



Good choice. My D300 has been awesome. I am waiting for the D700 to be upgraded then I will use it as my backup body or if I need more reach for wildlife shots (crop sensor).


----------

