17-55mm F2.8 or 24-70mm F2.8?


Exhaust

New Member
Dec 11, 2010
294
0
0
31
#1
Hi Guys, i am considering which would be a better buy, the 17-55mm F2.8 or 24-70mm F2.8?

I am into portraits and wedding photography primarily. I do quite a bit of street shots too and recently my company asked me to help them cover some functions for them as well, but not many, so it probably not a long term thing that i get a lens for events/functions.

The DSLR that i am using is the Nikon D3100.

the 17-55mm seems to be a good buy as what i saw from the personal classified threads that it is selling for about 1.25k - 1.5k. The 24-70mm however, is really really expensive but a very good lens to have for long term.

My personal thoughts on these lenses are basically that they are really similar. The 17-55mm is good in the sense you are able to go to 17mm and have some wider angle shots to cover a larger group of people/subject. Whereas the 24-70mm enables to be have a further reach in the event i need it.

Any advices/suggestions?
 

Reportage

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2008
5,785
2
0
#2
my opinion is if you intend to go full frame, stay with FX lenses.

the D3100 being a DX camera, the 24-70 becomes a general to short telephoto lens. The 17-55mm gives a wider view especially important when you want to do group shots and not enough space behind you to step back.
 

PaulKami

New Member
Sep 9, 2007
574
0
0
paulkami.com
#3
Agree. Both lens are used as itself, a DX or FX lens... 24-70 is pretty good to be used in DX, but it'd be a waste to do so in my opinion.

If you've no intention to change your camera (which you should, and that leads to what), stick to the 17-55, otherwise, a 24-70 would be considered as a good future investment.

PS: I assume you're talking about Nikkor lens...
 

catchlights

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 27, 2004
21,903
46
48
Punggol, Singapore
www.foto-u.com
#4
having the Nikon 17-55 or 24-70 will make people wow on your lens but may not your photos, so you can wait till you have the financial ability, else just try to impress people with the photos instead of your gears.

my suggestion is you get the tamron 17-50f2.8, and the sigma 50-150f2.8 if you plan to stay with DX body for awhile.
wait till you can make some dough with this set up than consider upgrade will be just nice.
 

PaulKami

New Member
Sep 9, 2007
574
0
0
paulkami.com
#5
my suggestion is you get the tamron 17-50f2.8, and the sigma 50-150f2.8 if you plan to stay with DX body for awhile.
wait till you can make some dough with this set up than consider upgrade will be just nice.
To quote and bold... Don't look down on 3rd party... that lens is good O_O
 

SnagIt

Senior Member
Aug 27, 2010
521
0
16
33
#6
having the Nikon 17-55 or 24-70 will make people wow on your lens but may not your photos, so you can wait till you have the financial ability, else just try to impress people with the photos instead of your gears.

my suggestion is you get the tamron 17-50f2.8, and the sigma 50-150f2.8 if you plan to stay with DX body for awhile.
wait till you can make some dough with this set up than consider upgrade will be just nice.
+1. I find the tamron 17-50 2.8 pretty good. Focus is slower than Nikkor but is torerable. If you die die want longer reach then can try Tamron 28-75 2.8 (it's dead cheap 600$)
 

brapodam

New Member
Jun 12, 2009
1,672
4
0
AMK
#7
+1 for the Tamron. It may have some focusing issues in low light plus low contrast situations, but if you have the AF assist with an external flash it should be fine. The Nikkor 17-55 is also very large (fat) and may end up hurting your fingers because the grip of the D3100 is quite close to the lens mount, and mounting the 17-55 on will reduce a lot of the space between the lens and the camera grip. It will also result in a seriously front-heavy setup, which is not a very good idea for shooting without a tripod for long. A smaller lens like the Tamron would be a better fit.

If you want to use the 24-70, you will need to pair it up with a wide angle zoom, otherwise you may not be able to get group shots with a lot of people.

I would recommend the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non-VC (make sure you ask the shop for the version with a built-in motor or it will not AF on your camera) plus a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 Macro HSM (the OS version is a lot more expensive). The Sigma 50-150 f2.8 is also a good choice, but the price difference from the 70-200/2.8 is not much (at least it isn't based on the prices at B&H)
 

ExplorerZ

Senior Member
Jan 9, 2006
7,752
0
36
West Legion
hkchew03.deviantart.com
#8
whether or not you choose to go FX in the future, 17-55 is still the way to go, can always sell it off at little loss since u intent to buy 2nd hand (unless it broke down)
 

Sep 30, 2010
82
0
0
#9
+1 for the Tamron. It may have some focusing issues in low light plus low contrast situations, but if you have the AF assist with an external flash it should be fine. The Nikkor 17-55 is also very large (fat) and may end up hurting your fingers because the grip of the D3100 is quite close to the lens mount, and mounting the 17-55 on will reduce a lot of the space between the lens and the camera grip. It will also result in a seriously front-heavy setup, which is not a very good idea for shooting without a tripod for long. A smaller lens like the Tamron would be a better fit.

If you want to use the 24-70, you will need to pair it up with a wide angle zoom, otherwise you may not be able to get group shots with a lot of people.

I would recommend the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non-VC (make sure you ask the shop for the version with a built-in motor or it will not AF on your camera) plus a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 Macro HSM (the OS version is a lot more expensive). The Sigma 50-150 f2.8 is also a good choice, but the price difference from the 70-200/2.8 is not much (at least it isn't based on the prices at B&H)
Thanks for this recommendation and warning, will think about this in the future next time too
 

ovaltinemilo

Senior Member
Sep 12, 2009
2,819
0
0
Sin jia Po lah
#10
If FX is not anytime soon, then better get the 17-55mm.

It's pointless to buy over-sized pants for a toddler, thinking that he can still wear it in the future etc. The point is, now it's not the best size for him. :bsmilie:

Both focal length can be of use. It depends on your usage. Getting FX in the future or not is another story. you can always sell your DX equipment when upgrade to FX.;p
 

Jul 9, 2009
849
1
0
Singapore
#11
Hi Guys, i am considering which would be a better buy, the 17-55mm F2.8 or 24-70mm F2.8?

I am into portraits and wedding photography primarily. I do quite a bit of street shots too and recently my company asked me to help them cover some functions for them as well, but not many, so it probably not a long term thing that i get a lens for events/functions.

The DSLR that i am using is the Nikon D3100.

the 17-55mm seems to be a good buy as what i saw from the personal classified threads that it is selling for about 1.25k - 1.5k. The 24-70mm however, is really really expensive but a very good lens to have for long term.

My personal thoughts on these lenses are basically that they are really similar. The 17-55mm is good in the sense you are able to go to 17mm and have some wider angle shots to cover a larger group of people/subject. Whereas the 24-70mm enables to be have a further reach in the event i need it.

Any advices/suggestions?
I think based on the above bold words, you should opt for a 17-55/17-50 variant on a crop body. Versatility is key here, especially in covering events indoor, during wedding to capture the surrounding environment and on the streets.
 

Exhaust

New Member
Dec 11, 2010
294
0
0
31
#12
Thanks guys for the advice and recommendations!! i shall go research a little bit more on Tamron lenses. To be honest, i did not think much about 3rd party lenses as it seems to me that original oem lenses are always the safer choice =)

any ide how much does the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 cost in retail stores?
 

Jan 27, 2010
809
0
0
#13
Thanks guys for the advice and recommendations!! i shall go research a little bit more on Tamron lenses. To be honest, i did not think much about 3rd party lenses as it seems to me that original oem lenses are always the safer choice =)

any ide how much does the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 cost in retail stores?
Hi TS, im not too sure how much they cost but you can always look at our price guide http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/showthread.php?t=654720
and make your decision from there.

As a word of caution, if you do not intend to stay in DX for long, do not get the 17-55 first hand. The depreciation is the worst i have ever seen for such an expensive lens. IIRC, new is 2100-2200 and the BnS market is 1300-1500. The 24-70 hold its value much longer. I still dont know why.. :think:

Perhaps the weight of the 17-55 is not justified. The 16-85 works much better in weight and its more affordable, but its a slow lens :bsmilie:
 

Irvine

Senior Member
Jan 1, 2010
1,037
0
36
North? South? East? West?
#14
IMHO, 24-70 f/2.8 performs better than 17-55 f/2.8. however, it's versatility that's more of an issue here, and u r into covering events. the 17-55 will be a better choice for DX provided that u r staying at DX. but like others said, if u choose to go FX in future, buy the 24-70 f/2.8 instead.
 

Verticoastro

Senior Member
May 7, 2006
2,077
3
0
Central
www.flickr.com
#15
I will stick to the 17-55 if my camera is a 1.5 crop sensor... It is a very general photographic range for me....

But currently I more into primes... A 20-35mm zoom and a 50mm is what I usually use for wedding shoot... If got a choice and using crop sensor, I will use a 10-22mm ... I am a sucker for wide.. And lousy at telephotos...
 

Sgdevilzz

Senior Member
May 16, 2010
1,631
1
38
#16
why not rent each of the lenses for a day and see which is better?
 

Yoricko

Senior Member
May 25, 2008
1,118
0
36
Singapore
#17
17-55 ƒ2.8 + 85 ƒ1.8
....

If you feel that 36mm eqv. is wide enough for you, go ahead on the 24-70mm. But I feel if you want selective focus with shallow depth of field ('bokeh'), you will have to use a short-tele prime. I am not sure about the 'bokeh' characteristics of the Nikon 85mm ƒ1.8 so you'll have to read that up by yourself.

Rgds,
 

Exhaust

New Member
Dec 11, 2010
294
0
0
31
#18
Has anyone tried the Sigma 24-70mm F2.8? How is it? If i am interested in 3rd party lenses for my Nikon D3100, what brands are recommended?
 

Exhaust

New Member
Dec 11, 2010
294
0
0
31
#19
Also.. any idea how does the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 non-VC fare? Without the vibration compensation, is it really hard to produce a sharp image especially if your subject is moving around? (weddings for example)
 

baggiolee

New Member
Dec 7, 2006
1,748
0
0
www.facebook.com
#20
Also.. any idea how does the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 non-VC fare? Without the vibration compensation, is it really hard to produce a sharp image especially if your subject is moving around? (weddings for example)
vibration reduction/compensation is to minimize hand shake while taking a shoot.

high shutter speed can be used to capture a fast moving subject.
 

Top Bottom