17-55 or 24-70


tiago

Member
Mar 9, 2011
123
0
16
hi,

i have a dx camera and want to get your opinion on these two lenses to cover the wide end of the spectrum. i have a budget of 2k so the options i am looking at are

nikon 17-55 mm OR sigma 24-70 mm

both f2.8 :think:
 

hi,

i have a dx camera and want to get your opinion on these two lenses to cover the wide end of the spectrum. i have a budget of 2k so the options i am looking at are

nikon 17-55 mm OR sigma 24-70 mm

both f2.8 :think:

IMO... i would get 17-55 since u r in crop body... as it can b fore useful for lanscape... i would get 24-70 if only i have UWA
 

IMO... i would get 17-55 since u r in crop body... as it can b fore useful for lanscape... i would get 24-70 if only i have UWA

No use. Crop bodies still has 1.5x factor even on DX lenses. that would mean the 17-55mm is almost equivalent to a 24-70mm. TS, both lenses are great but if you're going FX in afew years time i suggest you head for the 24-70mm.
 

a 24-70 is relatively tight but ok for table portraits, becoming almost 35-105. 35 still doable for landscape tho. if u staying on for dx, 17-55 would be my choice.
 

No use. Crop bodies still has 1.5x factor even on DX lenses. that would mean the 17-55mm is almost equivalent to a 24-70mm. TS, both lenses are great but if you're going FX in afew years time i suggest you head for the 24-70mm.

and the 24-70 would be equivalent to a 36-105.

24mm is doable for wide landscape shots. get the 17-55 if you're staying dx. else, consider expanding your budget and getting the nikon 24-70. i don't own the sigma 24-70 but posts from dpreview say the nikon version is significantly sharper. i own the nikon version and its a fantastic piece of glass

edit: also, what are you interested in shooting? different lenses suit different purposes.
 

Last edited:
No use. Crop bodies still has 1.5x factor even on DX lenses. that would mean the 17-55mm is almost equivalent to a 24-70mm. TS, both lenses are great but if you're going FX in afew years time i suggest you head for the 24-70mm.

i understand about crop factor on DX that y i already mentioned... as i will use UWA for landcape and will get 24-70... if i dun have UWA i would get 17-55 as 17 mm can b use for landscape... because i find 24mm n crop a little light for lanscape
 

off topic: landscapes aren't shot solely with ultra wide lenses.

5561517463_25da57cdc5_z.jpg


shot at 200mm.
 

and the 24-70 would be equivalent to a 36-105.

24mm is doable for wide landscape shots. get the 17-55 if you're staying dx. else, consider expanding your budget and getting the nikon 24-70. i don't own the sigma 24-70 but posts from dpreview say the nikon version is significantly sharper. i own the nikon version and its a fantastic piece of glass

edit: also, what are you interested in shooting? different lenses suit different purposes.

OH! i didn't see that it was a sigma 24-70mm. TS, you can get the NIKON's 24-70mm 2nd hand for about $2000. Definitely worth it. All lenses can be used for landscapes. It depends on which FL you like. For me i only consider 18mm and below for landscapes.
 

yes, you're right! Nikon's 24-70mm is sooooooo good... I just got mine and lovin' it....

OH! i didn't see that it was a sigma 24-70mm. TS, you can get the NIKON's 24-70mm 2nd hand for about $2000. Definitely worth it. All lenses can be used for landscapes. It depends on which FL you like. For me i only consider 18mm and below for landscapes.
 

Consider nikon 17-35mm f2.8 also.. Great lens
 

The 17-55 has very bad flare with strong light. Much better with the 24-70. Still 17-55 is a superb lens on DX
 

24-70 is a great lens. Just be mindful of the problems reported widely of this lens. Try to get a new piece instead of a used one.
 

24-70 is a great lens. Just be mindful of the problems reported widely of this lens. Try to get a new piece instead of a used one.

Why you recommend to get new instead used ?????