Wide-Mid-range Zoom Nikon lens f/2.8 which one is best?

hi,

I would like to buy a new wide/standard zoon lens with fixed aperture f/2.8
for all the focal range. The natural choices I have found a

(listed under standard zoom)
1-. AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED (new and out of stock nearly everywhere)
2-. AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

Do I want DX? quoted from Nikon website "DX design enables a combination of
wider angle-of-view with optical characteristics that are optimized for
Nikon digital SLR camera sensors". Why the newer models do not feature DX
e.g. the #1 24-70mm?

I plan to be using this lens on a D200/D300 for:

- General purpose, just go out and shoot just about anything interesting,
important it to be super sharp and ability to blur backgrounds, good bokeh,
etc
- Macro photographing if possible
- Night photographing e.g. I shot the picture below using the 18-200mm VR at
18mm focal length and f/3.5, 2s on a tripod. Will I be able to match/surpass
the quality using choice #1 or #2? is it the #1 24mm start focal length a
bit prohibitive for making such a shot?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7720089...15759/sizes/l/
- Good balance of low distorsion and wide angle
- Heavy use in dim light: portraits indoors, discos, car shows indoors etc.

Maybe #1 is the best choice? what about the lack of DX? #2 focal range is
kind of limited .. Kenrockwell review mentions distorsion for #2 to be "more
than he'd expect". I also already have the AF-S DX Nikkor 12-24mm f/4 IF-ED
so #2 would be a bit too much of an overlap e.g. I already use this wide
angle for shooting outdoors: landscapes, architecture etc.

Many thanks in advance.
regards,
Giovanni

Giovanni Azua wrote:
hi,

I would like to buy a new wide/standard zoon lens with fixed aperture f/2.8
for all the focal range. The natural choices I have found a

(listed under standard zoom)
1-. AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED (new and out of stock nearly everywhere)
2-. AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

Do I want DX? quoted from Nikon website "DX design enables a combination of
wider angle-of-view with optical characteristics that are optimized for
Nikon digital SLR camera sensors". Why the newer models do not feature DX
e.g. the #1 24-70mm?

That description is a bit dated. The main difference is DX covers a
smaller image circle so it's smaller, lighter, less expensive and
doesn't work on old film cameras or on the new $5,000 D3 model. If you
don't think you'd get that camera some day, it probably doesn't make
sense to get the 24-70. If low light shooting is an important thing for
you, you might consider getting that camera. You will be able to sell
the DX lenses for a good price if you decide to go that route.

I plan to be using this lens on a D200/D300 for:

- General purpose, just go out and shoot just about anything interesting,
important it to be super sharp and ability to blur backgrounds, good bokeh,

24mm f/2.8 won't blur backgrounds unless you are doing closeups. You
might prefer a faster fixed lens like a manual focus 35mm f/1.4 if you
want that look at a wide-ish angle. Probably not but something to consider.

etc
- Macro photographing if possible
- Night photographing e.g. I shot the picture below using the 18-200mm VR at
18mm focal length and f/3.5, 2s on a tripod. Will I be able to match/surpass
the quality using choice #1 or #2? is it the #1 24mm start focal length a
bit prohibitive for making such a shot?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7720089...15759/sizes/l/

You probably want the 17-55 then. OTOH with a tripod you don't need
speed and you have a 12-24.

- Good balance of low distorsion and wide angle
- Heavy use in dim light: portraits indoors, discos, car shows indoors etc.

Maybe #1 is the best choice? what about the lack of DX? #2 focal range is
kind of limited .. Kenrockwell review mentions distorsion for #2 to be "more
than he'd expect".

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zo...tml#AFS24-70FX

I also already have the AF-S DX Nikkor 12-24mm f/4 IF-ED
so #2 would be a bit too much of an overlap e.g. I already use this wide
angle for shooting outdoors: landscapes, architecture etc.

Many thanks in advance.
regards,
Giovanni

Giovanni Azua wrote:
hi,

I would like to buy a new wide/standard zoon lens with fixed aperture f/2.8
for all the focal range. The natural choices I have found a

(listed under standard zoom)
1-. AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED (new and out of stock nearly everywhere)
2-. AF-S DX Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED

Do I want DX? quoted from Nikon website "DX design enables a combination of
wider angle-of-view with optical characteristics that are optimized for
Nikon digital SLR camera sensors". Why the newer models do not feature DX
e.g. the #1 24-70mm?

I plan to be using this lens on a D200/D300 for:

- General purpose, just go out and shoot just about anything interesting,
important it to be super sharp and ability to blur backgrounds, good bokeh,
etc
- Macro photographing if possible
- Night photographing e.g. I shot the picture below using the 18-200mm VR at
18mm focal length and f/3.5, 2s on a tripod. Will I be able to match/surpass
the quality using choice #1 or #2? is it the #1 24mm start focal length a
bit prohibitive for making such a shot?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7720089...15759/sizes/l/
- Good balance of low distorsion and wide angle
- Heavy use in dim light: portraits indoors, discos, car shows indoors etc.

Maybe #1 is the best choice? what about the lack of DX? #2 focal range is
kind of limited .. Kenrockwell review mentions distorsion for #2 to be "more
than he'd expect". I also already have the AF-S DX Nikkor 12-24mm f/4 IF-ED
so #2 would be a bit too much of an overlap e.g. I already use this wide
angle for shooting outdoors: landscapes, architecture etc.

Many thanks in advance.
regards,
Giovanni



On a D200/D300 DX or non-DX isn't an issue. Both lenses are excellent,
so I believe that it comes down to focal length. Although I have the
17-55 and love it, since you already have the 12-24, the 24-70 may be
the way to go for you. OTOH, you gain only 15mm on the long end with
the 24-70 and the price difference is several hundred dollars.....

hi,

Many thanks for your reply.

BRH wrote in message
On a D200/D300 DX or non-DX isn't an issue. Both lenses are excellent, so
I believe that it comes down to focal length. Although I have the 17-55
and love it, since you already have the 12-24, the 24-70 may be the way to
go for you. OTOH, you gain only 15mm on the long end with the 24-70 and
the price difference is several hundred dollars.....

I have read somewhere that this non-DX 24-70mm would be if DX a 16-46mm
which makes absolutely no sense buying for a D200/D300 that I have. So I
would not be gaining 15mm on the long end or?

Anyway, I already decided and bought the 17-55mm which indeed overlaps in
range with my lighter 12-24mm f/4 but I am after the faster f/stops, namely
for the Auto Show Geneva next 06.03.2008 here in Switzerland I will be
taking:

- Nikon 10.5mm DX Fisheye f/2.8 this shot is from last year:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7720089...05000/sizes/o/

- Nikon 70-200mm VR f/2.8 (otherwise I won't make it to the ferraries and
the lambos )

and then this 17-55mm for "serious" close range shots and maybe use the
SB-800

I just paid 1200USD to H&B for this 17-55mm including shipping. The 24-70mm
is out of stock nearly everywhere in USA that ships internationally and here
in Switzerland it costs truly an arm and a leg +2000USD

Best regards,
Giovanni

hi Paul,

Many thanks for your reply!

"Paul Furman" wrote in
You probably want the 17-55 then. OTOH with a tripod you don't need speed
and you have a 12-24.

I just bought the 17-55 I think I will probably manage to get sharper night
pictures even with tripod will make it to less than 2secs for the same
picture before. Anyway my immediate need is the Auto show Geneva in 5 days I
can't get a tripod inside there if were possible then it is actually
unpractical.

Many thanks!

Best regards,
Giovanni

PS: I am still curious what is the actual focal range for the non DX 24-70mm
if mapped to a DX equivalent lens 16-46mm?

Giovanni Azua wrote:

PS: I am still curious what is the actual focal range for the non DX 24-70mm
if mapped to a DX equivalent lens 16-46mm?

If you had the 24-70 on a $5k D3, [2.9x]
that would look like a 16-46 on the D300.

The 24-70 replaces the 28-70 [2.5x]
which is like an 18-46

Before that was the 35-70 [2x]
which is like a 23-46

A full frame equiv. 25-82
would match your 17-55 [3.2x]


non-DX is called FX in nikon-speak

"Giovanni Azua" wrote in message
...

Do I want DX? quoted from Nikon website "DX design enables a combination
of wider angle-of-view with optical characteristics that are optimized for
Nikon digital SLR camera sensors". Why the newer models do not feature DX
e.g. the #1 24-70mm?

Because you can use the 24-70mm lens on a D3 or a film body without losing
the corners.

On 2008-03-02, Giovanni Azua wrote:
hi,

Many thanks for your reply.

BRH wrote in message
On a D200/D300 DX or non-DX isn't an issue. Both lenses are excellent, so
I believe that it comes down to focal length. Although I have the 17-55
and love it, since you already have the 12-24, the 24-70 may be the way to
go for you. OTOH, you gain only 15mm on the long end with the 24-70 and
the price difference is several hundred dollars.....

I have read somewhere that this non-DX 24-70mm would be if DX a 16-46mm
which makes absolutely no sense buying for a D200/D300 that I have. So I
would not be gaining 15mm on the long end or?

Whatever image circle the lens has its focal length will not change. The
24-70 mm would still be 24-70 mm.

--
Chris Savage Kiss me. Or would you rather live in a
Gateshead, UK land where the soap won't lather?
- Billy Bragg