Is the NIKKOR 17-55 f/2.8 too overpriced compared to its competitors? And with abit of top up, you could get the 24-70 f/2.8, however on a DX body is it advisable?
Is the 17-55mm f/2.8 worth it for DX?
- Thread starter BokehMaster
- Start date
BokehMaster said:
If its not worth it, then it's worthless, it can only work well on DX and gives you the wide angle that you need. If you compare with its competitor, then you got to compare things beyond IQ and price. It's built, weight, speed, features, etc etc...
The 24-70mm f/2.8 is a FX lens. Meaning if you use it on a DX Body, it is actually 36-105mm. So it really depends on how you are going to use it. 36mm is a little long (For some users) when doing Cityscape and narrow (For some users) for wide angle nature/outdoor landscape unless you want some reach and isolation. So it depends on how you like to compose your shots. Entirely different story when used on a FX body as 24-70mm is a very versatile and useful focal length on FX.
The 17-55mm f/2.8 is a DX lens. On a FX equivalent angle of view, it is 26mm to 85mm (approx) so it covers most of the focal lenght for most photography needs on a DX body.
One of the greatest strengths of the 24-70mm f/2.8 is its weather sealing and metal construction. If there is no intention to photograph in adverse weather conditions and use it like a workhorse lens, then it very much defeats the purpose of lugging around a 900g lens.
So, depending on what is your usage or intent of usage and if/or if not you are moving to FX soon, any DX lens maybe/maybe not a good buy for you.
Last edited:
You decide what you need. If you really need the 17mm focal length on DX, you can never get it from the 24-70mm, can you?
BokehMaster said:
Hi, because the price on 17-55 dx is everyone who called King of DX lens.
No regret, you can search from B/S or 3rd party for option
TS, the 24-70 range is kind of weird on DX body. Get the 17-55. It is the best 2.8 standard zoom available to DX cam bodies.
as for the focal range, forget what people say about buying the 24-70 for DX because may upgrade to FX later. Live in the now. Buy the lenses with the correct working range that gives you the flexibility you want/need. When it is time for you to move to FX, you can still sell your DX lenses.
as for the focal range, forget what people say about buying the 24-70 for DX because may upgrade to FX later. Live in the now. Buy the lenses with the correct working range that gives you the flexibility you want/need. When it is time for you to move to FX, you can still sell your DX lenses.
Is it worth it to buy it even when canon's version comes with IS and is priced much much cheaper? Was trying to say that it might be a little too overpriced? Of course it would be an ideal lens for DX, but its price range is way too much for what you are getting compared to lets say the canon which has IS and about 800-1000 bucks cheaper? Might as well top up a little bit more for the premium 24-70?
the 17-55f2.8 is the best DX lens money can get,
the 24-70f2.8 is a FX lens, off course you can use it on a DX body, but can you live without a wider focal length with this set up?
and always remember this very fundamental thing,
when a lens or any piece of gear is very useful to you, it will worth every penny that you paid for it,
when a lens or any piece of gear is not useful to you, it is not worth it even you pay very little money for it.
So only you have the answer to this question you have asked.
Have you seen Canon's version? Build is totally different, and it is not weather sealed.
U know, you can always switch to Canon if you feel it meets your needs better.
17-55 is in the same class as the 24-70. 24-70 is more expensive because it is FX, meaning the glass elements are bigger and heavier and focal length is different. And do note that 24-70 is a more fragile lens than the 17-55, and it has no IS as well.
In the end focal length is what you should be looking at...
Last edited:
you get a lens is to put it into use.
is the focal length of 24-70 on a DX body useful to you?
Do you have focal length coverage for 17-35mm? Or have you assessed what is your most commonly used focal range for your pohtography.
I personally found 18-35mm(DX terms) to be my most commonly used landscape/travel portrait focal range on my DX body that is the D5000.
Just a suggestion. Should you really want a FX lens and find the 17-55mm DX too expensive, give the 16-35mm f/4 VR a thought. It gives the same coverage as 24-52mm focal length and angle of view and is at about 300 bucks cheaper than the 17-55mm and 800 bucks cheaper than the 24-70mm. The setback is, it is f/4 and not f/2.8 but it does have VR that is great for hand holding during low light conditions.
Quote from other people "Only you know whether its worth it or not" Because end of the day..Its you...behind the camera.
Even if its overpriced compare to other brands..What are you going to do? Sell everything and jump to another brand? Doing so will only cost you even more. Unless you have a body of that another brand...then you might want to compare what the lens can offer you..if you can justify the extra cost.
The 24-70 is like a 17-55..just that its for the FX format.. By mounting 1 on your DX camera.. you can never get as wide as 17...and it will be big and heavy on the front. If you dont mind.. Do your research and get the tools that suits your photography needs. If its a want..then just get whatever that can make you a more happy person...
Last edited:
Like what i said before. Jumping over will cost you more unless..
Quit comparing.
Hmm IMO..you dont really need IS for short lenses like 17-55..although i must admit having IS is a Plus..but not a MUST. And in time to come..If the IS go faulty. you have to repair it..- More cost. You are so concern for IS...
If im not wrong the 24-70 dosent come to IS too..right? So now you are using a even longer lens..without IS..thus more prone to blur photos..and you are paying more. :bsmilie: Hmm... think about it.
The canon 17-55 IS, is totally different design from nikon 17-55 built like tank.
for the canon front focusing & zoom length is non internal design vs nikon design is just like you pay for 17-35mm f/2.8D all internal focusing & zoom length extend.
i can suggest you if needed VR in f2.8 fixed aperture midrange can be consider as :
16-35mm f/4G VR
16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G VR
17-55mm f/2.8 non VR
17-35mm f/2.8 non VR
18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR or more power zoom.
3rd party :
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 VC
Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 OS
Tokina 16-50mm f/2.8 non VC/OS/VR/IS
Last edited:
It is not just simply about focal length coverage. It is about flexibility and versatility when that one lens is mounted. Especially for people shooting fast scenes (street, photo journalism, events, weddings, etc). Sometimes you just cannot afford the time to change lenses.
I'm of the opinion that the comparison against the Canon equivalent is moot. If you wish to stick to Nikon, you pretty much have to stick the Nikon and Nikon-mount 3rd party lenses. (unless you want to use those lens mount converters)
Once again, if the 17-55mm range is what you need, it is pretty much the only lens offered by Nikon that covers that range.
If cost is your concern, consider the 3rd party manufacturers, as a helpful CSer has already listed above.
Otherwise, just get any lens you desire.
Once again, if the 17-55mm range is what you need, it is pretty much the only lens offered by Nikon that covers that range.
If cost is your concern, consider the 3rd party manufacturers, as a helpful CSer has already listed above.
Otherwise, just get any lens you desire.
I had the 17-55 a few years back, but sold it 2 years ago. I was raising cash to prepare to jump to FX. So i was left with my 2 old FX primes. I stuck the 24 2.8D on my DX body, and I never regretted it one bit. Its wide enough for travel, and most importantly, its very light.
So if i were you, i would get the 24-70 as i am already used to 24 on a DX body. People say its a weird focal length, but thats just because you are not used to it. The 17-55 is damn sharp, but i would get the Tameron instead.
So if i were you, i would get the 24-70 as i am already used to 24 on a DX body. People say its a weird focal length, but thats just because you are not used to it. The 17-55 is damn sharp, but i would get the Tameron instead.
May I know the reason(s) for preferring the Tammy over the Nikon 17-55, other than the lower cost? Thanks
Similar threads
