Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
Does anyone own a Nikon 24 - 70 F2.8, if so how do they find it? I am upgrading as such from a 17 - 55mm F.28
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
Fantastic lens, virtually lives on my D300, glad I traded up to this lens. HOpe others will confirm this for you. If you change you won't be sorry.
Good lens, it's standard issue for professionals who use Nikon and I use it for a lot of my studio work. It performs a lot better than the 28-70 lens that it replaced.
The 17-55 is also a fine lens, but only covers DX format. Unless you've switched to full-frame, there seems little point in trading it in unless you need the focal length range.
My 24/70 is a stunning performer on my FX cameras; if I had DX solely I wouldn't rush to upgrade a 17/55 a superlative performer I read.
Fabulous lens, Never fails to amaze me everytime I use it, Tends to live on my D700 most of the time......
My copy is super sharp at f/2.8 throught its focal range, Stays that way as you stop down too .....
Many reviews say that its as good as any " Prime " within its focal range, A view I would not argue with, Makes my old Nikon 50mm look soft....!!!
Always stuck to my D700 does brilliant portraits & landscapes. Damian
Why the "upgrade" on a D300 dx.? The 17-55 on a d300 equals the 24-70 on a FX (approx.) , unless of course your keeping both.
Thanks for all the comments. I am upgrading as this is my last DX lens so I can in the future buy an FX camera plus I also have got a decent exchange value for it against the proposed new lens. I always found 17 - 55 just a bit short which was annoying!
If you find the 17-55 is too short on DX, you won't like the 24-70 either.
If you scale for sensor size, the 24-70 on FX would do the same job as a 16-47 on DX.
But on my DX camera it will be 35 to 105?
Nick, looked at your gallery, much of which is excellent and very well suited to the 17-55. That said, if going soon to FX, go for it, ......doubtful you will be disappointed in the 24-70. If your waiting a bit for the FX, consider keeping the 17-55, plus the 24-70 and when you do go FX trade the former for a 70-200 2.8, or a 14-24.......your new 24-70 will present the same dilema on a FX so far as being short, that you currently have with you 17-55. All said, google nikon 24-70 2.8 and try to find a bad review, few and far between.
Enjoy much when it arrives.
thanks for the information however I have been offered around £600 in part exchange for my 17 - 55. I already own a 70 - 200 f2.8.
Im a little confused about why you suggest I get a 14 - 24? I thought getting the 24 - 70 that means it would be a 35 - 105 on my D300 and then a true 24 - 70 on an FX camera which would still be longer than the 17 - 55?
I tend to confuse people easily, try again.. meant today D300 17-55 plus 24-70, as many of your gallery shots lend themselves nicely to the 17-55.
Later..FX 24-70 plus 14-24 (trading in 17-55) to maintain the look of your gallerys' perspectives.
The 600 would be tempting.
A later trade of the 17-55 would give you the so called Nikon FX Trinity. 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, all 2.8.
I need to have my nap now,...my head hurts.
Having looked at your portfolio why upgrade to FX?
OK a couple of night shots might in theory benefit from the noise advantage of a D700 - but you are obviously stopping down. With DX you get the same DOF as FX (same viewfinder crop) 1 shutter speed faster, canceling out most of the D700/D3 noise advantage at high ISO's.
At low ISO's FX (other than 24 MP D3x) does not give you any more sharpness or resolution than a D300s/s
Whether you need another lens regardless of DX or FX is another topic
I might upgrade to FX in the future. If I did the 17 - 55 would be useless and is dropping in value all the time. I considered the 24 - 70 as it was FX so in theory would work on both systems while giving me a little bit more reach on my current D300.
The lens after the 24 - 70 is the 70 - 200 which I already have. The solution is to have a 17 - 150 F2.8 but there is nothing.
Len if you read the thread, being offered half the price for the 17 - 55 is something always worth considering
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
Are you a Nikon owner? Check out Nikon Nation to find the latest Nikon news, reviews, discussion and photos on ePHOTOzine.
This month's sponsor
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
30th April 2013 - 31st May 2013
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View May's Photo Month Calendar