Pros & Cons on 17-55mm vs 24-70mm on a Fx body


EdOkH

New Member
Dec 20, 2004
407
0
0
41
Tam Pines
#1
Hi gurus,

Have a dilemma here... what are your comments on the above?

having come from the dx background, I only see the difference in focal length. I used the lens simulator in Nikon website and tts what I see.
Other than tt, is image quality a huge difference?
I presume both of the focus speed will be on par since both are f2.8?
Personally, I do feel the tightness when using the 17-55 on the fx body. Besides that, I just have the nagging feeling that it's somehow of an overlap so no point...

Thanks for your input...
 

daredevil123

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 25, 2005
21,660
68
48
lil red dot
#3
17-55mm is a dx lens. which means the image circle is smaller. when mounted on a fx camera and shooting in forced fx mode, you will notice dark edges on frame on wider focal lengths.
 

EdOkH

New Member
Dec 20, 2004
407
0
0
41
Tam Pines
#4
17-55 is a dx lens, it can works on a fx body....... on dx mode.
Yes, tried tt before. Jus tt it's feels a tat tighter bcos of dx mode and the grey border is around the viewfinder.

unless the dark edges is on purpose, else it's kinda pointless to shoot it in forced fx mode...

tts why im in a dilemna if de 24-70mm is needed since de 17-55mm can also double up.

Find it a waste of money jus for de extra grey border space
 

catchlights

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 27, 2004
21,903
46
48
Punggol, Singapore
www.foto-u.com
#5
Yes, tried tt before. Jus tt it's feels a tat tighter bcos of dx mode and the grey border is around the viewfinder.

unless the dark edges is on purpose, else it's kinda pointless to shoot it in forced fx mode...

tts why im in a dilemna if de 24-70mm is needed since de 17-55mm can also double up.

Find it a waste of money jus for de extra grey border space
you are seeing the lens coverage thru a optical viewfinder, it won't and can't "zoom in" for you.
 

enenyi

New Member
Mar 28, 2013
155
1
0
Singapore
#6
Hi gurus,

Have a dilemma here... what are your comments on the above?

having come from the dx background, I only see the difference in focal length. I used the lens simulator in Nikon website and tts what I see.
Other than tt, is image quality a huge difference?
I presume both of the focus speed will be on par since both are f2.8?
Personally, I do feel the tightness when using the 17-55 on the fx body. Besides that, I just have the nagging feeling that it's somehow of an overlap so no point...

Thanks for your input...
My advice is to use DX lens on DX body and FX lens on FX body. Wad can a 17-55 do on the FX body that the 24-70 cant? 24-70 can reach 24mm at its widest, 17-55 can only reach the equivalent field-of-view of 25.5mm on FX. At the telephoto end, 17-55 goes only to 82.5mm FX-equivalent while 24-70 reaches to 105mm FX-equivalent when setting the FX camera to shoot in DX mode. If not wide enough, buy a 14-24 or 18-35 FX to complement the 24-70.
 

darrrrrrrrrr

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2006
3,209
5
38
30
Singapore
#7
Buy FX camera but sticking to DX lenses.. Then what's the point of buying a FX camera? That, imo, is the bigger waste of money here lol
 

#8
My advice is to use DX lens on DX body and FX lens on FX body. Wad can a 17-55 do on the FX body that the 24-70 cant? 24-70 can reach 24mm at its widest, 17-55 can only reach the equivalent field-of-view of 25.5mm on FX. At the telephoto end, 17-55 goes only to 82.5mm FX-equivalent while 24-70 reaches to 105mm FX-equivalent when setting the FX camera to shoot in DX mode. If not wide enough, buy a 14-24 or 18-35 FX to complement the 24-70.
Plus to add, how much (less) of your FX sensor you are using because you are using a DX lens on it? You do know that right in terms of megapixel ?

This whole idea of using an FX body and coupled with DX lens is like the analogy of buying a sport car and then buying the cheapest crap tires to save some money. heheh
 

Last edited:

sjackal

Senior Member
Jul 9, 2008
4,490
10
38
#9
Buy FX camera but sticking to DX lenses.. Then what's the point of buying a FX camera? That, imo, is the bigger waste of money here lol
Exactly. Many people on DX awaiting to transit to FX (back then when all waiting for FX to emerge), or planning to upgrade from DX to FX..... are all buying FX lenses with the upgrade in mind.

He is the other way round. LOL
 

darrrrrrrrrr

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2006
3,209
5
38
30
Singapore
#10
Plus to add, how much (less) of your FX sensor you are using because you are using a DX lens on it? You do know that right in terms of megapixel ?

This whole idea of using an FX body and coupled with DX lens is like the analogy of buying a sport car and then buying the cheapest crap tires to save some money. heheh
Haha then end up driving slower than a lower end car with the same tires due to excessive wheelspin.. AKA unused megapixels being thrown away, end up lower megapixel count than a DX sensor.
 

Top Bottom