Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 vs 24-120mm f4

I like the shots I get with the 24-120mm F4 but couldn't comment on the 17-55 (there's a review of it on bythom.com here if you're interested) & a review on the 24-120 F4 on mansurovs.com here
 
I find the range of the 17-5x lenses a bit of an annoying compromise these days. When I want wide angle 17 is never wide enough and the reach is very average.

So given that I have to carry a wide angle lens around anyway there is no point on the 17-55 if I can have the 24-120 (which I do not).

I do have a 17-50 2.8 Tamron which is rather excellent for the money but when it comes down to it the lenses that are on my camera 99% of the time is a 1x-24 wide angle or a 50-150 2.8 Sigma.

If the 24-120 was available when I was buying the Sigma it would have been a serious contender and would have probably ended up selling the 17-50 Tamron.
 
You gain the reach but would you miss the f/2.8?

Saying that, you have got VR on the 24-120
 
I often use f2.8 but mainly because I often shoot in lower light and need the shutter speed, so f4 with VR would be even better I assume, I do sometimes need the extra reach and rarely shoot down to 17mm.
The main question is, is the image quality of the 24-120mm as good as the 17-55mm?
 
I have the 17-55 2.8 like you and i have pondered the same question, mainly for portrait and wedding shoots. I have seen one in Jacobs, the build quality is nothing near, i love the wide open aspect of the 2.8, but could use the extra reach, but i have not made the jump yet, i keep hoping someone in my local camera club will buy it and i can have a go with it. A couple of people on here have had the 24-120 f4 and sold them on, so that is another reason i have hung back. I keep thinking save up and get the 70-200. So if you buy one i would be interested how you got on.
 
Jango said:
I have the 17-55 2.8 like you and i have pondered the same question, mainly for portrait and wedding shoots. I have seen one in Jacobs, the build quality is nothing near, i love the wide open aspect of the 2.8, but could use the extra reach, but i have not made the jump yet, i keep hoping someone in my local camera club will buy it and i can have a go with it. A couple of people on here have had the 24-120 f4 and sold them on, so that is another reason i have hung back. I keep thinking save up and get the 70-200. So if you buy one i would be interested how you got on.
Click to expand...

I did have a quick play with one Saturday in warehouse express, just boils down to image quality for me really.
I have the 70-200 and its the best money I ever spent on camera gear, would never part with it!
 
:thumbs:You have the best of both worlds then eh!
Guess you just want to carry one lens around then.
 
Had both, sold both, much preferred the 24-120. Range and VR coupled with great flare resistance make for a great package on FX. Yes the 17-55 is better built and has an extra stop, but that's all.
 
jpw said:
Had both, sold both, much preferred the 24-120. Range and VR coupled with great flare resistance make for a great package on FX. Yes the 17-55 is better built and has an extra stop, but that's all.
Click to expand...

Oh tempting!!!! DX body though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top