nikon 24-70 or 17-55


shaoquan

New Member
Sep 2, 2010
28
0
1
#1
Hi guys. Basically, i have to choose between these 2 lens and i cant seems to come up with a conclusion. Both lens are equally good. I own a D90 and a
35mm prime only. I also intend to buy 11-16 in the months to come. Soooooo do u guys have any recommendations?
 

NoS77

Senior Member
May 19, 2008
724
2
18
#2
Do you find your 35mm prime too tight? 24mm may not be wide enough for everyday use.

Just my 2 cents. :)
 

jas1984

New Member
May 28, 2011
475
0
0
Singapore / Little Red Dot
#3
Hi guys. Basically, i have to choose between these 2 lens and i cant seems to come up with a conclusion. Both lens are equally good. I own a D90 and a
35mm prime only. I also intend to buy 11-16 in the months to come. Soooooo do u guys have any recommendations?
If i really have to choose one.. i will go for the 17-55mm (25.5-82.5) as i find the 24-70mm(36-105) a bit too tight for everyday use.. Do take note D90 have a 1.5x crop factor...But why not go for the Nikon 18-135mm? :)
 

mazeppa26

New Member
Dec 28, 2005
457
0
0
#4
if you intend to upgrade to FF then buy 24-70 :)
 

shaoquan

New Member
Sep 2, 2010
28
0
1
#5
If i really have to choose one.. i will go for the 17-55mm (25.5-82.5) as i find the 24-70mm(36-105) a bit too tight for everyday use.. Do take note D90 have a 1.5x crop factor...But why not go for the Nikon 18-135mm? :)
I want to get those lens because of the 2.8 :/
 

shaoquan

New Member
Sep 2, 2010
28
0
1
#6
Do you find your 35mm prime too tight? 24mm may not be wide enough for everyday use.

Just my 2 cents. :)
35 is kind of limited. sometimes too wide sometimes too tight. Yea. thus i get the idea of getting new lenssss~
 

r0n1n

Senior Member
Mar 9, 2009
808
1
18
Wild Wild West
#9
17-55 :) this is has been discussed in Nikon subforum. Please check that out.
 

shaoquan

New Member
Sep 2, 2010
28
0
1
#12
Why don't you also consider:

Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS ($1k)
Tamron 17-50/2.8 non VC ($500+)
Tamron 17-50/2.8 VC ($900)
okay nice recommendations. the sigma looks nice. a few more lens to consider~ haha. thanks anyway~
 

ericcf

New Member
Jul 22, 2011
509
0
0
East
#14
for dx cam. is a nikon 10-24mm, 18-105mm, afs 70-300mm, 35mm and 50mm more than enough? or is there any overlapping?
 

kansatish

New Member
Dec 30, 2010
53
0
0
Queenstown
#15
ericcf said:
for dx cam. is a nikon 10-24mm, 18-105mm, afs 70-300mm, 35mm and 50mm more than enough? or is there any overlapping?
Agree, covers full range for a DX camera. Though I would probably leave the 35mm prime out - just a personal choice.
 

soeypixels

Senior Member
Jun 24, 2007
1,477
0
36
#16
ru u gg to upgrade to FX soon??
then get the 17-35 else 24-70 is also good

don bother tight or wide
is about your shooting style and what u shoot
 

tehzeh

New Member
Aug 7, 2009
627
0
0
Thomas More's Vision
#17
I will be critical and tell you that f/2.8, especially for the 2470/1755/1424/1735, doesn't mean nothing when compared to the cheaper primes, which have a larger aperture, if your purpose of the f/2.8 was for the bokeh/ poor lighting conditions. I see that you have tried primes. Unless you think that you can't live with primes or you must get a zoom because you are a professional or you need the zoom, primes will always be the cheaper way out.
 

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,644
63
48
lil red dot
#18
I will be critical and tell you that f/2.8, especially for the 2470/1755/1424/1735, doesn't mean nothing when compared to the cheaper primes, which have a larger aperture, if your purpose of the f/2.8 was for the bokeh/ poor lighting conditions. I see that you have tried primes. Unless you think that you can't live with primes or you must get a zoom because you are a professional or you need the zoom, primes will always be the cheaper way out.
F2.8 zooms have their uses. But it is up to the TS to decide if those lenses fit his needs.
 

Top Bottom