Nikon 24-70 to replace 17-55 on DX - Worth it? [Archive]

pablob

13-04-2009, 21:35

Hi there,

I'm reading lots of positive stuff about the 24-70 but understand it's really best used with FX and seems the perfect partner to a D3 (one day lol).

So really although the 17-55 is a really good workhorse and the lens that spends most time on my D300 I'm wondering if I'm just just really being silly comsidering this?

So really looking for those peeps that have maybe had both in the past on DX format (Maybe Puddleduck?!)

Don't really want to hear how great it is on FX, we know that, I'm concerned about DX performance only.

Have done some quick searches and of course have read Big Ken R whose says don't bother using this with DX and then I read this that raves about it on DX

http://nikonreviews.wordpress.com/2008/03/12/nikon-24-70-lens-review/

I'm not too concerned about losing the wider end as I have the 12-24 already in my armoury.

HELP!

Cheers in advance as always

Paul

sdb123

13-04-2009, 21:37

Which focal lengths do you find yourself using most on your 17-55mm?

dlh

13-04-2009, 21:45

As you've got the wide covered with the 12-24 I don't see anything to stop you.

fontmoss

13-04-2009, 22:13

what they said. cant imagine this lens will be anything but nice on DX, just a weird length on crop sensor.

pablob

14-04-2009, 04:27

Which focal lengths do you find yourself using most on your 17-55mm?

Hard to say - which means one doesn't really stick out over any other!

Need to do a bit more reading me thinks!

Wail

14-04-2009, 06:40

I never liked the range of 17-55 on DX (the same range as the 24-70 on FX). It just wasn't the right range for me :shrug: .. hence, my 24-70 AF-S almost monopolised the time on all my DX bodies. It was just perfect .. seriously perfect to the point that it defined my shooting style a lot.

It's a lens I will re-buy (having sold mine, silly me) and I will match it with a D200.

hiddybiddy

14-04-2009, 06:47

Hi there,

I'm reading lots of positive stuff about the 24-70 but understand it's really best used with FX and seems the perfect partner to a D3 (one day lol).

So really although the 17-55 is a really good workhorse and the lens that spends most time on my D300 I'm wondering if I'm just just really being silly comsidering this?

So really looking for those peeps that have maybe had both in the past on DX format (Maybe Puddleduck?!)

Don't really want to hear how great it is on FX, we know that, I'm concerned about DX performance only.

Have done some quick searches and of course have read Big Ken R whose says don't bother using this with DX and then I read this that raves about it on DX

http://nikonreviews.wordpress.com/2008/03/12/nikon-24-70-lens-review/

I'm not too concerned about losing the wider end as I have the 12-24 already in my armoury.

HELP!

Cheers in advance as always

Paul

My opinion for what its worth is:
I started with a 17-55 stock lens but very quickly found myself sell it and buy a 12-24 (tokina) and a 24-70(sigma). I have a D300 so dx processor for me. It was a seemless transition but to be honest I did it because it felt right:cuckoo: rather than putting any processing power into it. Just as well I'm not a businessman! So if it feels right then do it, if you don't want to then .......don't but I switch quite a lot between the two and never wish I kept the 17-55 so that tells me I did the right thing.

NorthernNikon

14-04-2009, 14:03

what they said. cant imagine this lens will be anything but nice on DX, just a weird length on crop sensor.

Weird? I don't think so. 36-105mm equiv give you a lovely portrait zoom.

pablob

14-04-2009, 16:18

Bum I knew the overiding theme would be get one!

What do mint 17-55 Boxed with instructions etc etc go for these days?

sdb123

14-04-2009, 16:55

Bum I knew the overiding theme would be get one!

What do mint 17-55 Boxed with instructions etc etc go for these days?

Where?

On e-Bay around £675ish but then you need to factor in 10% fv fees (if an auction) + other fees. I'd assume £600 outside of e-Bay but that may be way off.

fontmoss

15-04-2009, 15:29

sorry i meant weird compared to a 17-55, i think 24-70 would suit me much better than 17-55 on crop sensor. but i just assumed i was weird :)

pablob

15-04-2009, 16:41

Well I'm going to see if I can get hold of one 2nd hand from somewhere I'm not paying £1200 whwn it was only £900 or so back in December! If I don't get one then the 17-55 will do me for now! :)

NorthernNikon

16-04-2009, 19:23

I'm not paying £1200 whwn it was only £900 or so back in December!

Where's the logic in that? Do you think that 2nd hand prices haven't gone up since the new prices soared? I'm not saying that you have to get a new one, but but don't discount getting one just because prices have gone up recently.