17-55mm f/2.8 v.s. 24-70mm f/2.8
- Thread starter aq12345
- Start date
- Status
24-70 is a FF lens. You had only 36mm at the widest end if you are using 1.5x crop sensor. Unless your are going to upgrade to FF very soon, then i will recommand 24-70, if not 17-55 is a better choice.
If u shooting wedding, then 24-70 should be better. But if u like to have a len to suit most but not all the situation, go for the 17~35mm f/2.8 as the 17 ~ 55mm f/2.8 cannot compare with that in term of constant foscuing and quality.
if you are on a DX format then the 17-55. 24-70 is good but not as useful on the wide angle unless you are planning on getting the D3.
i beg to differ...the 24-70 is not wide enuff after the 1.5crop and at the longer end...if u r not steady in ur handling of the camera, its very prone to handshake...becoz no VR
17-35mm i've used it on the D70s to shoot wedding before...i would say its very sharper and brighter than the 17-55 DX...as its a stepdown to DX and its meant to be for 135 format but again if u r going to do those wide angle close up dynamic shots...i personally think its not wide enuff...and at the same time something is happening at the other side of the room...u may hafta take another step or 2 forward as its not long enuff
17-55mm DX which i've used for events and also weddings...this lens is fantastic for the focusing and sharpness...in your case that you're still using a DX camera and taking into consideration that u may not be spending $7999 on a D3 after spending at least a $1.8k on a 2nd hand 17-55...i dun think u shud go get a 24-70 or 17-35.
the 17-55 DX will be a workhorse lens for u even if u upgrade to a D80 or any upcoming entry level DSLR or even the D300. I would say wear a swimming trunks that best fits u.
i hope the above ans ur doubt
Ya, there are actually many out there who says that the 17-35 performs better than the 17-55
The reason that why I will choose the 17-35 and 24-70 is because they are full frame lens, and their quality is :thumbsup:
Wah. First time I have come across criticism of 17-55mm. I thought 17-35 and 24-70 would be roughly be on par with it.
Now must go borrow some lens and see exactly how much sharper and brighter the 17-35 is compared to the 17-55 (citing Lumiere).
I've handled 17-35mm, but never touched the 17-55mm so I cannot say much.
Now must go borrow some lens and see exactly how much sharper and brighter the 17-35 is compared to the 17-55 (citing Lumiere).
I've handled 17-35mm, but never touched the 17-55mm so I cannot say much.
it is the other way around. 17-55 is close but not to the level of 17-35 or the 24-70. Of course to really see the difference you have to be pixel peeping.
you should chose a lens is base on your usage,
if you want a lens can pao suan pao hai on 1.5x dslr, go for 18~200VR.
and you want a lens with both good coverage and good quality, go for 17~55.
using 24~70, you will lose on the wide end.
a good high quality lens can give you razor sharp, good contrast, rich color tonal images, but these does not translated into good photos.
hope this help.
if you want a lens can pao suan pao hai on 1.5x dslr, go for 18~200VR.
and you want a lens with both good coverage and good quality, go for 17~55.
using 24~70, you will lose on the wide end.
a good high quality lens can give you razor sharp, good contrast, rich color tonal images, but these does not translated into good photos.
hope this help.
Can elaborate where?
- MTF charts show both are roughly on par.
- Vignetting also ok, except 17-35 vignettes at 25mm with 0.8EV rather than 17mm (weird, but data is from photozone.de, a site I trust).
- CA is worse on 17-55, but not by a large margin
- Status
Similar threads
