Friends,

I have 1 question
For a DX user, which lens more suitable?

Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G (FX)
Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8G (DX)

Difference by 1k...

For those who got BOTH lens, really appreciate your advice!!

17-55, 2470 range would be not tele and not wide enough kinda condition.

Wah surely eyefi is waaaaay better for tehthering, don't you think so?
No need messy wires..
Haven't tried yet but I think it's a great tool (by theory)

But don't know if u can control the shutter/autofocus wiith the computer.. (On liveview mode)

This subject has been debated a lot here recently and on the internet.

The thing is it depends on what you want to do. What lenses do you already have? What kind of photography are you into? Events / wedding day? If yes, the 17-55 is more favoured on the DX body.

Got question here.

Who try 24mm f2.8d before? Might to share some ur thoughts thanks.

course? pls dont say at nikonian academy...

Haven't discovered anything about eyefi yet. Like u said, its potential limitation would be on the remote control via PC. Unless they come together with such software or compatible with current tether-able softwares.

Actually I've just updated my Lightroom. Last nite tried the tethered capture, found out the cable too short. Potong stim!

No la, just a basic course organized by my company's employees club. Watching Chelsea's game?

ya, linesman kayu...

Haha! I thought so too. At least our boys played quite well. Just regard that one as a consolation goal as not to embarass chelsea. You should be glad perhaps coz your fav team scored more goals here

Yeah, for those who is confused to choose which one. Just take it like this.

17-55 is the "24-70" of DX.

24-70 is the "17-55" of FX.

Your choice is fully depending on which body you are using.

as usual, spam dlu then read back to back haha



full story is at http://isepunyephoto.blogspot.com/2011/07/...engagement.html

I was at your position few weeks back and I made the choice for 17-55 instead of 24-70, that's mainly because I'm on DX which the effective focal length after 1.5x factor is 25.5-82.5 (17-55) and 36-105 (24-70).

I need wide coverage for the photos I'm shooting hence I made it to 17-55 as I find 24-70 is kind of tight after my experience with the kit lens 18-105

Thanks to all of your advice.
Anybody here got both lens? (angkat tangan)

Well I am ok of the calculation.
More interested to know the quality and sharpness ..

I am not event or wedding photography, more on hobby shooting indoor speedy gonzales (kids runing at home).
As for discussion
i think the 24-70 (2007 design) and 17-55 (2004 design)
any newer replacement version coming out?

i think comparing sharpness of the 24-70 and the 17-55 is like looking at angels dancing on a pin head. you will probably go blind.

if i was on ur shoe, ill take 2470 anytime. higher 2nd hand value (due to higher price) and easier to sell. ya lor not many DX user can afford to buy 1755 but im pretty sure most of FX user can afford 2470

in term of sharpness, i think both is almost the same. colors also almost same contrast. the only major differ is the range. both has top quality! both motors are fast!

do u have kitlens? if yes, try to limit urself untiil 24mm. shoot for couple of week. if u think that 24mm is wide enuff for ur usage, then there u go

Depending how important the wide is to you; Don't forget both lens are big and heavy; Hobby shooting indoor, you might not want to carry such big glass and chasing kids or trying "extraordinary' angles. For that, you actually have MUCH MORE cheaper options, lighter, smaller and "arguably" comparable sharpness and good image quality, such as the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non-VC, for only around RM1200 (around than 4 times cheaper than a NEW 17-55mm f/2.8 Nikkor). The main issue is the slower AF, hunting and inaccurate AF in low light, and noisy motor; however it's much more lighter and compact, easier to move around and shoot for hobby indoor.

If money is not an issue, 17-55mm is great, but it's just way too expensive, for DX lens and it's so far apart from it's 3rd party counterpart, plus the 2nd hand value is much lower (unless you plan to go for 2nd hand). For budget or hobby use (under budget), I personally feel the price is too steep; But if one is using it for "work", it's different story.
Imagine this: One could buy a 24-70mm f/2.8 and at the same time spend extra about RM1K and get the Tammy.

Anyway, just my personal opinion. There's no wrong or right, it depends on how each person see/evaluates it.

comparing 17-55 with 3rd party?
well, u are paying extra for focus speed, focus accuracy, built quality, etc.

plus, i dont see why is there a need to differentiate a buyer based on whether its a hobby or for work.
just buy what makes them happy, its their money afterall.

there are plenty way more expensive hobbies than dslr anyway...like car modifications

---

Added on July 22, 2011, 1:00 pmalso, as always buy for what u need now, not later.
btw, 17-55, as for a few DX lenses can be used on FX bodies...so its not a total waste should u go to FX later down the road...
ignoring the DX mode on the bodies, the 17-55 essentially becomes around a 28-55.
u could also enable DX crop mode, and it may probably a waste as ppl think DX lens on FX bodies are...
anyway current DX bodies crop mode is only around 6mp...unless you got a D3x that has 10mp in crop mode.
its still more than enough mp provided you frame right.

or wait for the new estimated 30mp FX body, in crop mode that should get 15-16mp

This post has been edited by Everdying: Jul 22 2011, 01:02 PM

tamron is a regretful choice. at the end i use more 1870 rather than 1750. and now more 2880 rather than 1870 ><

That's if you don't need the f/2.8; The AF hunting and inaccuracy in low light is very bad, Sigma is much better in this case, but less sharp wide open.
Plus, there's no new 18-70mm.

This post has been edited by Andy214: Jul 22 2011, 02:04 PM

I used it before I sold it since it got very little time on the camera. It's small and compact. Nice for street photography. Never tried it on FX body though. Should be an ok lens if you can get it cheap.

Looking back at my old pics, it was very prone to flare from the limited usage that I had. Just have to be careful when shooting into the source of light during day or night time.



I think if one is looking at 3rd party wide engles, the Tamron 16-28mm f/2.8 is interesting. The design and shape looks a lot like the nikon's 14-24mm f/2.8. Don't know if it already available here or not...

As I recall, guitar collection is also very expensive.

That's true. DX mode on D700/D3/D3s is 5.2 MP. I lived with 4MP before on the D2Hs.

Anyway, while you can still use a DX lens on FX body in FX mode (not in auto crop DX mode) at certain focal lengths (usually at longer ends), you need to stop it down a lot to kill away the vignetting problem in the corners. Even then, the quality in the sides will be mushy because DX glasses are only optimised in the centre portion.

Used to remember that the 18-70 kit lens were plenty in the market when everybody had a D70.

This post has been edited by jchue73: Jul 22 2011, 02:55 PM