Portrait Zoom Lens: 17-55DX f2.8 or Trinity 28-70 f2.8 better ?

[horizon_grazer]

Greetings all,


1st post here,
Been a D70 user for a year & still is (waiting for D200 price drop..)
Recently try to venture deeper in the 'Portraiture' side &
considering an upgrade in lens *cheers*

Just trying to seek some advises here, especially ppl wif sum/xperience in portraiture,

Which nikon zoom lens is more suitable for portraiture ?
(A) Newer version 17-55DX f2.8 OR
(B) Trinity 28-70 f2.8

Some of the data sourced frm oversea reviews by famous Ang Moh include:

(A) 17-55DX f2.8
Pro: Sharp at all aperture; more compact build n lighter; cheaper(a bit only lah); wider (17mm)
Con: Not suitable for use on film camera (not dat i care); loud noise during focusing after prolong continuous focusing; not as robust as 28-70 f2.8


(B) Trinity 28-70 f2.8
Pro: Built like a tank; longer focus length(better headshot n background more thrown out?);
can be use on film camera as not 'G' len, look more pro esp wif hood on(haha..)
Con: Not sharp whn wide open (f2.8) but very sharp whn lock dwn to f4-5.6, heavy n bulkier(expected, Pro mah)


@@ Both are AFS but why no VR *sign*, wait model too chio, handshake, how? haha..


*** WHAT I really wish to hear is the feel, limitations, advantages, overall package frm LOCAL PHOTOGRAPHERS who are lucky (or ppl who eat grass in order) to hv the honour to use/own these 2 lens before

PLS DUN
(1) Ask me to buy both, as both lens are for similar usage n focus lenght are about the same
(Not rich man son, oso eat grass quite long b4 can afford)

(2) Ask me buy prime, if prime lens, i will wait till Nikon come out 85mm f1.4/.2 AFS n I own the 50mm f1.4 which i think is quite gd (ado cannot compare to 85mm prime for bokeh)


## Had briefly tried both zoom lens @ AP, John 3:16 & CP before but only BRIEFLY
Like the feel of both but no real suituation to try it out


Last but not least,
(1) thx for reading thru tis lenghty post
(2) No offense reading abt the cons of the lens if u happen to own one or both (oops !)
(3) Pls dun flamed/BBQ me if any data is incorrect as I still new here & lots of data is referred frm other sites (4) Thx in advance for any bro/s contributing to tis thread

[agape01]

Ask yourself what kind of shots do you want to do when using the AFS 28-70. Otherwise get the 17-55.

The other thing is that I think your info on the 28-70 when shooting at 2.8 is not sharp could possibly be wrong. However, I think it is better if you could try one in a potraiture shoot.

Other than that, good luck in making your selection.

[Lmodel]

Going for portrait, perhaps the 28-70 would be a better choice. Its defintely a sharp lens and 17-55 belongs to another classification under DX lens. If possible, get the 28-70 f2.8 and save up for the 17-35 f2.8 to compliment the range of trinity LoL

Alternatively, the 85mm and 105mm Prime is one good piece of lens for taking portraits as well.

Cheers

[nightwolf75]

Originally Posted by horizon_grazer Greetings all, 1st post here, Been a D70 user for a year & still is (waiting for D200 price drop..) Recently try to venture deeper in the 'Portraiture' side & considering an upgrade in lens *cheers* Just trying to seek some advises here, especially ppl wif sum/xperience in portraiture, Which nikon zoom lens is more suitable for portraiture ? (A) Newer version 17-55DX f2.8 OR (B) Trinity 28-70 f2.8 Some of the data sourced frm oversea reviews by famous Ang Moh include: (A) 17-55DX f2.8 Pro: Sharp at all aperture; more compact build n lighter; cheaper(a bit only lah); wider (17mm) Con: Not suitable for use on film camera (not dat i care); loud noise during focusing after prolong continuous focusing; not as robust as 28-70 f2.8 (B) Trinity 28-70 f2.8 Pro: Built like a tank; longer focus length(better headshot n background more thrown out?); can be use on film camera as not 'G' len, look more pro esp wif hood on(haha..) Con: Not sharp whn wide open (f2.8) but very sharp whn lock dwn to f4-5.6, heavy n bulkier(expected, Pro mah)

eh... ur budget? (not it matters, really... when it comes to these 2 lenses! )

since u have no (?) intention going film, then the 17-55 is perfectly fine for portrait. if we dun want to quibble abt numbers, the 17-55 is supposed to replicate the 28-70 range (after crop factor of x1.5) on DSLRs. u're also right abt the built. 28-70 looks and feels tougher than the 17-55. however, u will suffer a 'weight-penalty' lah, for the tougher lens barrel.

had the opportunity to try both lenses b4 on a D2h and D2x last yr, courtesy of Nikon SG during one of the Big Events in 2005. at least to my eye, the sharpness is there for both lenses. very little to differentiate bet them, even at f2.8. if i was using only DSLRs, i won't hestitate to get the 17-55 becos of the weight factor.

[horizon_grazer]

Thx agape01, for being the 1st to reply to tis post

(1) Er.. Interested in portrait shoots loh, be it indoor/outdoor. Going for my 1st studio shoot tis coming friday

(2) No right or wrong opinions for not sharp at f2.8 for Trinity 28-70 (esp at focal length 28mm), is just a summary of pro/consumer reviews I got after going through all the links at www.nikonlinks.com for tis len. Might be they got a lemon set, anyway respect your opinion

Any CSer care to defend the holy trinity 28-70 by showing a sharp pic taken at 28mm f2.8

(3) When I throw in 2k++ investment , need more than a bit of luck but sincere thx 4 ur well wishes

Thx agape01 again for being the 1st to reply, esp at such early hours

[rebbot]

Originally Posted by horizon_grazer Greetings all, 1st post here, Been a D70 user for a year & still is (waiting for D200 price drop..) Recently try to venture deeper in the 'Portraiture' side & considering an upgrade in lens *cheers* Just trying to seek some advises here, especially ppl wif sum/xperience in portraiture, Which nikon zoom lens is more suitable for portraiture ? (A) Newer version 17-55DX f2.8 OR (B) Trinity 28-70 f2.8 Some of the data sourced frm oversea reviews by famous Ang Moh include: (A) 17-55DX f2.8 Pro: Sharp at all aperture; more compact build n lighter; cheaper(a bit only lah); wider (17mm) Con: Not suitable for use on film camera (not dat i care); loud noise during focusing after prolong continuous focusing; not as robust as 28-70 f2.8 (B) Trinity 28-70 f2.8 Pro: Built like a tank; longer focus length(better headshot n background more thrown out?); can be use on film camera as not 'G' len, look more pro esp wif hood on(haha..) Con: Not sharp whn wide open (f2.8) but very sharp whn lock dwn to f4-5.6, heavy n bulkier(expected, Pro mah) @@ Both are AFS but why no VR *sign*, wait model too chio, handshake, how? haha.. *** WHAT I really wish to hear is the feel, limitations, advantages, overall package frm LOCAL PHOTOGRAPHERS who are lucky (or ppl who eat grass in order) to hv the honour to use/own these 2 lens before PLS DUN (1) Ask me to buy both, as both lens are for similar usage n focus lenght are about the same (Not rich man son, oso eat grass quite long b4 can afford) (2) Ask me buy prime, if prime lens, i will wait till Nikon come out 85mm f1.4/.2 AFS n I own the 50mm f1.4 which i think is quite gd (ado cannot compare to 85mm prime for bokeh) ## Had briefly tried both zoom lens @ AP, John 3:16 & CP before but only BRIEFLY Like the feel of both but no real suituation to try it out Last but not least, (1) thx for reading thru tis lenghty post (2) No offense reading abt the cons of the lens if u happen to own one or both (oops !) (3) Pls dun flamed/BBQ me if any data is incorrect as I still new here & lots of data is referred frm other sites (4) Thx in advance for any bro/s contributing to tis thread

For DSLRs, I did go for the 17-55mm. I am using one now and do not get a loud noise during continous tracking of a subject. 28-70mm is a beast and I feel that its heavier to lug around.

Hope I helped

[horizon_grazer]

Originally Posted by Lmodel Going for portrait, perhaps the 28-70 would be a better choice. Its defintely a sharp lens and 17-55 belongs to another classification under DX lens. If possible, get the 28-70 f2.8 and save up for the 17-35 f2.8 to compliment the range of trinity LoL Alternatively, the 85mm and 105mm Prime is one good piece of lens for taking portraits as well. Cheers

Thx Lmodel

Let me OT a bit;

If I am a film/FF user, I believe I will try my best to slo..ow..ly complete the holy trinity lens collection. No doubt, all three are outstanding (ermmh, cough..cough xpensive) optics. However for photographer wif a budget like me , its more of buying for needs instead of collection. Which my immediate need is juz portraiture.

Mainly I guess as I will be sticking to the 1.5X fov for at least 3-4 years

The wonderful 17-35 f2.8 will not serve me as it is not wide enough, & should I ever gain interest in landscape, I guess I will go for 14mm f2.8 instead.

However, the trinity 70-200mm f2.8 is definitely on my next target, as I considered it as one of the most perfect zoom len by Nikon, but only after at least 6 mths after buying the portraiture lens Actually can buy both (portraiture & 70-200mm f2.8) together. However my resource had been diverted to the LENS TO RULE THEM ALL, which is the best & most important to me. Dat is my EYES.

YES, i planning to go for wavefront operation soon

[Lmodel]

Hey dude,

You're most welcome. The best Zoom is always "THE LEGS" haha

Cheers

[lsisaxon]

Originally Posted by horizon_grazer 1st post here, Been a D70 user for a year & still is (waiting for D200 price drop..) Recently try to venture deeper in the 'Portraiture' side & considering an upgrade in lens *cheers*

Knowing Nikon, the price is unlikely to drop drastically. Nikon makes cameras, not gadgets. Unfortunately, after eating grass for so long, still haven't have these 2 lenses but I think it really depends whether you want the wide end if you're using a DX body.

But if the choice is only between these 2 lenses and knowing that I will be predominantly shooting portraiture, I will get the 28-70/2.8 because the wider end will make it easier to do full body shots as well. Then you can probably get the 12-24 at a later point in time to fill the wideangle gap.

[horizon_grazer]

Honoured to hv Guru Nightwolf75 & rebbot to join tis humble thread !
Both your comments rally knock much sense into me

Srry to make everyone crack their head for tis thread, by comparing these 2 outstanding zoom lens. As pointing out cons for either one is simply a case of nitpicking.

But let us continue to find out which lens is the better one, at least for a digital DX format user !



To follow-up on my earlier statement of loud noise for 17-55mm f2.8 during continuous focusing, actually it is pushing the 17-55mm to limit, the Ang Moh test by half depressing the shutter button to continuous focus for 4-5mins w/o letting go. He claim that the SWM will becum very noisy by the 5th min but the issue will go away after turning off/on the camera. How true is that, I dun know, if u own the 17-55mm, try at ur own risk !

Pls dun me as I only hearsay about it

[azul123]

I was reading this post with a bit on interest... if you are doing portraiture you won't really need fast lens as mostly you would need sharp of F8 onwards right? unless you have low light situation.

For sharpness of 17-55mm, you might want to compare that with D70 kit lens, it is very comparable (caveat if you don't need fast lens, just comparing sharpness only).

Unless you have use for other than portraiture why dump money when it can be done equally well with 18-70mm, gives you head shot, half to full body in the studio.

../azul123

[PornStar]

I went with the 28-70/2.8 because I still use my F4 and still shoot on film.

If fully digital, I would go for the 17-55/2.8.

It's pointless to quibble which is better or more suitable. It's been done to the death. Apples and oranges.

[Cheesecake]

angenieux AF28-70 f2.6
grab one if u see it on sale! no bluff no bluff!

[roti_prata]

the [trinity] is made up of 17-35 28-70 70-200. a [trinity 28-70] makes no sense at all

the 28-70 can be used on film because its not dx and not because its non-G. a G lens can work on film cameras.

various forums reported lemons amongst 17-55

why u claim tt the 17-55 is sharp at f2.8 but the 28-70 is not?

the 28-70 is only 15mm longer thn 17-55, the [better background] effect is minimal. oso according to u the 28-70 is sharp only at f4-5.6 so the 17-55 at f2.8 will still giv better background right?

suggestion: shoot both lenses at the shop at various apatures. go home and check 100%.

[Cheesecake]

Originally Posted by roti_prata the [trinity] is made up of 17-35 28-70 70-200. a [trinity 28-70] makes no sense at all the 28-70 can be used on film because its not dx and not because its non-G. a G lens can work on film cameras. various forums reported lemons amongst 17-55 why u claim tt the 17-55 is sharp at f2.8 but the 28-70 is not? the 28-70 is only 15mm longer thn 17-55, the [better background] effect is minimal. oso according to u the 28-70 is sharp only at f4-5.6 so the 17-55 at f2.8 will still giv better background right? suggestion: shoot both lenses at the shop at various apatures. go home and check 100%.

the so-called 'trinity' is made up by loyal nikon fans and worshippers.
i dun buy into that 'trinity' tag thingy at all but would love to haf the 70-200. haha

the 17-55 oso can be used on film SLRs less manual ones. it has a workable range of dunno where to dunno where la.. u might want to read bythom.com for more information.

read very good reviews on... surprise surprise, the tamron 28-75 f.28 from dpreview.com.

read here.

bring ur laptop along and test the lens like wat roti_prata has suggested.

[Cactus jACK]

i think many of us would be in the same boat... 17-35, 17-55, 28-70?

i'm going for the 17-55 because of the nicer range for event shooting. but i would also use the lense for some portraits too. having said that, without going into the quality comparison of the lenses, i gain the 17-24 (more for group shots) but loose the 55-70 (more for half body or headshot portraits) range...

what i am trying to get at is that it would also depend on what type of portraits you would like to shoot. you requested not to recommend the prime lenses, but related to that - there are reasons why the 50, 85, 105, 135 are known as good portrait lenses, but also for different types of portrait shoots. some reviewers would tell you 28-70 sharper, others 17-55 sharper... assuming optical quality being equal (which many would claim), i'd go with the practical approach of using the right tool for the job, and getting the with the range that you need.

no point buying the 17-55 only to have to keep changing lense to mount a 85.

no point buying a 28-70 only to complain about the weight when all you use is 50.

[vince123123]

The perspective/bokeh and other lens characteristics of a 17-55 even with 1.5x will not be the same as a 28-70. There is a difference between crop factor and simply multiplying focal length.

A 17-55 at 55mm on a 1.5x body is not the same as a (17-55)*1.5 on a film body.

Originally Posted by nightwolf75 since u have no (?) intention going film, then the 17-55 is perfectly fine for portrait. if we dun want to quibble abt numbers, the 17-55 is supposed to replicate the 28-70 range (after crop factor of x1.5) on DSLRs.

[Cactus jACK]

Originally Posted by vince123123 The perspective/bokeh and other lens characteristics of a 17-55 even with 1.5x will not be the same as a 28-70. There is a difference between crop factor and simply multiplying focal length.

don't think that was his intention, but a good and important point to get across.

also, extending on that, 55mm (with "feet" zoom, i.e. walking closer to your subject) is not equal to 70mm. e.g. for the same framed headshot, you would likely see more distortion with the 55mm (with "feet" zoom) than the 70mm.

[roti_prata]

im holding my breath for the 105vr marco. if the price is gd i'll sell my tokina 28-80 to fund it.

i'd suggest u get the 17-55 if ur not using it exclusively for protraits. now i find myself changing lenses often, between 12-24 and 28-80. the 28-70/80 cuts off at a rather inconvinent(for me at least) focal length on digital.

[lsisaxon]

Originally Posted by Cheesecake angenieux AF28-70 f2.6 grab one if u see it on sale! no bluff no bluff!

I don't think anyone of the right mind will sell that lens unless really giving up hobby.