New pro lens purchasing help (17-55mm or 24-70mm)

[ionz13]

Hi all!

I currently have a Nikon D90 with the following lenses with the baby Sb400
- 12-24mm f4 (tokina)
- 18-55mm f3.5
- 55-200mm
- 35mm f1.8

I am planning to pick up a faster lens soon and was on the fence about either of these two pro lenses. The DX 17-55 f2.8 or the FX 24-70mm f2.8.

I understand that these two lenses are expensive (1500 vs 1800 approx,) heavy (~2lbs,) and have different usages. I find myself definitely wanting a lens with f2.8 for the low light capabilities; mainly b/c I tend to shoot in lower light situations and I enjoy the Bokeh capabilities of these lenses. My questions are does it make sense to go for the 17-55mm when I already have the 18-55mm? Secondly, if I do get the 24-70mm, the equivalent will be around 35-105 on my Dx body right? Does anyone currently have this lens (24-70mm) on their DX body and find that it is too difficult to use indoors?

I recently started using my 35 prime more and found that when I was in NYC trying to use it, I always had to take a few steps back. Will I have a similar problem with the 24-70mm?

 

[ssanders79]

Don't worry about the 18-55 being redundant, you are upgrading not adding. Whichever lens you get I'd put the 18-55mm in a box and save it to sell with the D90 if you decide to upgrade bodies.

 

[photo_chick]

Secondly, if I do get the 24-70mm, the equivalent will be around 35-105 on my Dx body right? Does anyone currently have this lens (24-70mm) on their DX body and find that it is too difficult to use indoors?

24mm on the 24-70 will the same field of view as 24mm on the 17-55, or on your 18-55. The actual focal length doesn't change here, the difference between crop and full frame comes in how much of the projected image the camera captures so as long as you stay with the same format body it doesn't really matter what the other format does, know what I mean? You're used to what you're used to. You don't really have to apply the crop factor when you're lens shopping.

I shoot with a 28-105 on my crop Canon body. I love the range for a walkaround lens but it's not wide enough for some things, like groups and close shots of buildings. So I still keep my old 18-55 kit with me when I know I will be in those types of situations.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

Just looking at focal lengths, you have the wide end covered with the Tokina, so I would go with the 24-70 as an upgrade to the 18-55. I shoot with a 28-70 f2.8 as my walkaround lens and use my 18-55 as my wider option. An ultra-wide, such as a 12-24, is on my radar screen.

 

[extreme8]

If you have any thoughts of moving to an FX body at any time in the near future go for the 24-70.
Either one is a fine choice (I have both) but if you do decide to make the jump to FX having the 17-55 will put you at a disadvantage.
The only downside is the loss of some wide coverage until you make the move to full frame.

 

[ionz13]

Don't worry about the 18-55 being redundant, you are upgrading not adding. Whichever lens you get I'd put the 18-55mm in a box and save it to sell with the D90 if you decide to upgrade bodies.

Thanks for the tip. I never really looked at it as a full upgrade. I do enjoy the quality of the 18-55mm, but sometimes find the lens slightly limiting in low light situations.

I shoot with a 28-105 on my crop Canon body. I love the range for a walkaround lens but it's not wide enough for some things, like groups and close shots of buildings. So I still keep my old 18-55 kit with me when I know I will be in those types of situations.

Thanks for the tips. I will keep this in mind when I make my final decision.

Just looking at focal lengths, you have the wide end covered with the Tokina, so I would go with the 24-70 as an upgrade to the 18-55. I shoot with a 28-70 f2.8 as my walkaround lens and use my 18-55 as my wider option. An ultra-wide, such as a 12-24, is on my radar screen.

Do you every have trouble shooting with the 24-70 indoors?

If you have any thoughts of moving to an FX body at any time in the near future go for the 24-70.
Either one is a fine choice (I have both) but if you do decide to make the jump to FX having the 17-55 will put you at a disadvantage.
The only downside is the loss of some wide coverage until you make the move to full frame.

I really don't have any plans to upgrade to an FX body, but I always have that itching feeling that the DX lineup from Nikon will eventually be merged into just one FX lineup. Since you have both, which one tends to stay on your camera the most? (which body are you using too?)

 

[SunDial]

I have the 24-70 and love it. i do not have any real problems indoors with this. It is on the D40 most of the time. I am now looking at the 10-24 to go with the 24-70

 

[ionz13]

Thanks Sundial!

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

Do you every have trouble shooting with the 24-70 indoors?

Once in a while it gets tight, but that is why I have the 18-55 and desire a 12-24. I'm not adverse to slapping on my flash with the 18-55. In fact my flashes are on my cameras quite a bit. Just yesterday I was using my flashes outdoors to calm down some harsh sunlight.

 

[handicap18]

I have the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and I thought it was a great lens UNTIL I got the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8. That lens almost never leaves my D300. I LOVE IT!

Great IQ, very sharp, and its focus is spot on and fast.

I use it a lot for indoor candids with my SB-900 with a diffuser. I take lots of indoor shots, but usually with more than 1 person in the shot, so I prefer to be around f/5.6 or f/8. If there is only 1 person in the shot, then I'll try it out with f/2.8 and no flash. But even at f/2.8 I like using the flash dialed way down to about 1/32 or lower power:

Here are a few examples:
f/2.8, ISO 800, 1/60th, 38mm, no flash:

f/2.8, ISO 320, 1/100th, 63mm, flash at 1/128th power:

f/2.8, ISO 200, 1/500th, 70mm, no flash:

 

[YesDear]

I own the 24-70 and love it. I have use the 17-35 and feel the 24-70 is a better lens.

 

[ionz13]

I have the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and I thought it was a great lens UNTIL I got the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8. That lens almost never leaves my D300. I LOVE IT!

Great IQ, very sharp, and its focus is spot on and fast.

.

Thanks for your images, they looks really great. I've never considered the tamron 17-50mm, how does it compare to the 24-70mm (obviously it does not) but is it a good alternative?

 

[handicap18]

Thanks for your images, they looks really great. I've never considered the tamron 17-50mm, how does it compare to the 24-70mm (obviously it does not) but is it a good alternative?

For the price of the Tamron it is a good alternative. I really enjoyed using the Tamron. At one point I bought the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 and used it for a friends wedding that was set in a very dark restaurant. The Sigma completely failed me. Had trouble getting focus. Hunting a lot and missing just as much. Luckily I had the Tamron with me an it worked flawlessly. Focused quickly in dark situations and never missed a focus. It was always spot on.

If money is a factor then I would highly recommend the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. I still have mine, but don't use it much since I have the Nikon 24-70, but it is a nice quality backup to have in my bag.

 

[Experiment_626]

Here are some handheld shots I got from the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (the newer "VC" version) on a local cave tour:


Cave of Wonders! by Scott S. Baxter, on Flickr


_DSC4341 by Scott S. Baxter, on Flickr


_DSC4219 by Scott S. Baxter, on Flickr

Just FWIW.

SSB