17-55 or 24-70 to equip with D90


Apr 10, 2009
19
0
0
36
#1
As title, confusing to choose between 17-55 or 24-70 to equip with D90?
Currently using D90 with kit Len, and feel that kit Len are not fast enough to capture my dearest daughter movement and make the photo blur..
Furthermore, plan to have a Thailand trip soon, thus may want tp upgrade my gear.
Pls advice, thank
 

catchlights

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 27, 2004
21,903
46
48
Punggol, Singapore
www.foto-u.com
#2
both lenses are rather bulky and heavy, rent anyone of this lens, carry it whole day and do some shoots, than you will know whether do you still want to bring it to your trip.
 

nickzkcin

New Member
Dec 24, 2009
220
0
0
#3
What is your upgrade route?

Possible future FX - 24-70.
Happy with DX - 17-55.

However, I would advise against making pictures of your daughter at f/2.8 unless you're really good or if the lighting is really poor. The kit lens is often more than capable of the job. Would recommend you to rent/borrow and test the two lenses before making a decision
 

Dec 26, 2006
449
0
16
Singapore
#4
As you didn't mention whether you would upgrade the camera body to FX, so I assume you will only upgrade the lens only. For a apsc camera body, the best match is also a apsc lens. 17-55 is the pro zoom apsc lens for the apsc body such as D90. I recommend this lens for D90.

The 24-70 on D90 will lose the wide angle as it is equivalent to 36-105mm only.
 

Jan 5, 2010
276
0
0
#5
I personally find the 24-70 a little too tight for a walkaround but excellent for Portraitures. It is actually a really sweet lens to use with your D90. Bulky, rather heavy and a nuisance at times for storage, it may be, but is rewarding. Since you are using kit lens, see if you are comfortable with that focal range for a period of time test.......also the 24-70 don't come with the VR, which I thought I may not need too, until some of those times.....ha...ha...!

Like some of the bros here are saying, if you do have the intention to move on to FX in future it may be a worthwhile investment consideration and at lease till then it is not as tight for a walkaround.....
 

Last edited:

coolthought

Senior Member
Jun 23, 2008
2,310
1
0
#6
have you consider lenses of other makes?

tokina has a similar zoom lens 16-50 f2.8 (610g)
tamron 17-50 f2.8 VC (570g)
and sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS. (565g)
Probably you might want to take a look at the sigma 17-50.
A lot more cheaper than the ones you are looking at and quite a bit lighter too at 565g compared to the 2 nikon lenses at 755g and 900g
 

Last edited:
Sep 25, 2009
436
0
16
#7
I found that for general travel shots, 17-55 is excellent (I use D90). Bit heavy but bearable for old uncle like me. No regrets so far. Sometimes when real lazy then I just mount a fixed 35mm to swing around. You will train yourself very soon if there is limitations. Quality as we know is from the man.....
 

mazeppa26

New Member
Dec 28, 2005
457
0
0
#8
17-55mm unless u plan to upgrade to FX
 

Jan 28, 2011
566
0
0
#9
hi TS,
I uses prime mostly to capture my active kids ... 50mm f1.4G.
It gives better bokeh effects than both lenses you mentioned.
 

endous

New Member
Nov 3, 2010
79
0
0
Singapore, Woodlands
#10
I had both 17-55 and 24-70 and using it on my d300. I find that 24-70 is a better lens compared to 17-55 in terms of iq and build quality. I don't shoot wide, so start at 24mm is fine for me. And also 24-70 came with nano coating and there's no need to change lens if you wish to upgrade to fx in the future.
 

Blur Shadow

Senior Member
Sep 17, 2005
4,886
4
0
#11
I am in favor of the 24-70mm. But both lenses are huge and bulky. You may not appreciate its weight or bulk.
 

joyceng

New Member
Jun 27, 2011
7
0
0
#12
I'm using 24-70 on my D300 as well and i like the combination. It's heavy but iq more important to me. Never try 17-55 before.
 

Dec 12, 2010
57
0
6
#13
taking pictures of kids what are the recommended settings?
if on aperiture priority mode go with higher iso for example?

i was thinking your settings more important than upgrading lens for this purpose.
 

ZerocoolAstra

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2008
9,522
0
0
rainy Singapore
#14
As title, confusing to choose between 17-55 or 24-70 to equip with D90?
Currently using D90 with kit Len, and feel that kit Len are not fast enough to capture my dearest daughter movement and make the photo blur..
Furthermore, plan to have a Thailand trip soon, thus may want tp upgrade my gear.
Pls advice, thank
What focal length do you mainly use when you photograph your dearest daughter?
Do you think that not having the 17-23mm focal range will be a 'handicap' in any way? Or do you prefer to have the 56-70mm focal range?
 

baggiolee

New Member
Dec 7, 2006
1,748
0
0
www.facebook.com
#15
i choose 24-70 over 17-55 because i believe 24-70 is a more superior lens in terms of IQ, and upgrading to FF in near future is also my main reason.

24-70 is not wide enough for landscape for my taste and it'll be abit difficult to shoot HDB/condo indoor as well.
 

Sep 25, 2009
436
0
16
#16
Tried the 50 f1.8G? Reading the thread, it seems like a excellent lens for the purpose of taking shots of kids
 

Top Bottom