2001AudiS4

I have been putting pennies aside to save up for a quality lens for a while. I shoot with a Nikon D7000 and have narrowed my search to the nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 or 24-70 f/2.8. Actually, I have been eyeing both of these for a long while now, and have rented both to get a feel for their size, weight, and overall quality. I think I had better results with the 17-55, and it felt comfortable. I really liked it. I didn't love the 24-70 but I only had 5 days to play with it, so it was a bit limiting.

My concerns are the obvious wide angle issue on a DX sensor. Is the 24-70 going to be TOO limited indoors? I have been taking more pictures of my jobs lately, and am thinking of also getting a Tokina 11-16mm as well, since I have read a lot of great reviews on this lens.

Really just not sure which to go with, and don't want to throw that kind of money on a lens that is the wrong choice.

I shoot a lot of pictures of our dogs, people at family parties, some nature pictures here and there, be it landscape or just pictures in the spring time flowers or fall foliage. I am a big fan of nice bokeh, so not sure if one is better at producing great bokeh.

Any insight or suggestions for one or the other and why you'd go that way would be appreciated.

Oh, also I do not see myself going FX anytime soon if ever. I don't think I shoot enough to justify the costs of starting over.

Sarlacc

11-16 AND a 24-70

problem is the 17-55 is better for interior, the 24-70 will be better for all the animal/family stuff.

you can also look at the tokina 24-70 which is a lot less and gotten rave reviews OVER nikon and canon's in house versions.

2001AudiS4

Thanks Dave. I am concerned with how fast the Tokina will auto focus. I currently have a 17-55 f/2.8 Sigma and the lens is kind of a crap shoot. I have some focusing issues on it that can be frustrating. I have produced some great quality shots with, but have also many unusables. One thing I liked about both of the nikons when I rented them is how fast they focus. Combined with the AF system in the D7000, they both will provide (I believe) much better results at least with the fast action dog pics as they rarely sit still when outdoors. The plan is to sell the Sigma and put that money towards the 11-16. I have a few other lenses that I might sell as well. The 18-105 kit lens which is actually remarkably decent for a kit lens, a Nikon 35 f/1.8 which won't bring a lot of money but not sure I will use it again if I have either of the lenses I am looking at, and also an older 18-200 that I never use (way too slow). This lens is probably a 20 year old lens or close to it.

jupitersolo

The 11-16 is a good lenses, but in low light, it searches like crazy. The Nikon 10-24mm does a better job.

As for the main lens, you might want to look at Sigma's new 24-120, which on a cropped lens is a lot of coverage.

2001AudiS4

Thanks. I'll take a look at the Nikon UWA as well. Lighting could certainly be an issue as many times I may be taking pictures of the back side of an equipment rack in a closet and darker rooms like home theaters.

I am not sure I want to go with a Sigma. I suppose if I buy from someplace that offers an easy return policy in case I am not satisfied. I am a little put off on Sigma and Tamron. When I first got the D7000 I tried a Tamron 18-280mm and it would not work with my body. Gave errors. Sent it back for a replacement and the same issue. Only lenses I have tried that did that. Not saying they don't make a decent lens though, just skewed my view on them I guess.

With Sigma, my experience is limited to the lens I have now. I seem to fight this thing to get a good image. When I do get a good shot though, I admit they are very sharp and good coloring. The speed of the auto focus is definitely a selling point for me. If they are not quick and accurate, then I will not be happy. This was a point of interest for me of both the Nikon 17-55 and 24-70 when I rented them. They were blazingly fast to lock on.

is300eater

Sigma has stepped up their game in the industry in the past couple years.

Even the New Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 with image stabilization gets pretty good reviews

jupitersolo

Tamron, 18-270, super zoom, not the best no matter what maker. They have sweet spots and that is very limted.

The errors, I know someone else who had problems, but that IIRC was because his camera was older.

I know know two pros that use Tamrons w/o issues.


But Sigma has picked up their game. Their primes are getting people really happy. And that's pouring into, their zooms now as well.

2001AudiS4

I still have yet to see any remarks on the speed of the auto focus on the non-nikon lenses. This is essential to me.

As far as IQ, are these other lenses superior to the nikon lenses in IQ?

jupitersolo

Out of the 3rd party, Sigma would be the best out of the bunch. Like I said, people are forgoing Canon and Nikon Pro primes for the Sigma 35 and 50mm lenses. And their IQ is starting to hit their zooms as well.

With any lens you can get a bad one, you can always return it or send it it to be adjusted.

2001AudiS4

Thanks for the input, but my decision is still between the Nikon offerings. I know they are of great quality, some of the best, and also offer fast auto focus, something I have mentioned in every post but has garnered no mention with the third party lenses.

I really wish to decide between the Nikon 17-55 and 24-70.

asianspec

iTrader: (1)

rent the lenses?

2001AudiS4

Another question I have is filters. Is a Nikon Polarizing filter worth the extra money over say a Tiffen on Amazon that is selling for about $20? The Tiffen actually gets some pretty good reviews, so I think I will lean towards that, since I don't mind throwing the $20 towards it and tossing it if it isn't of great quality. Unless someone tells me that there is a substantial difference and the Nikon filter is work the extra money.

Sarlacc

Filters I tend to go B+W or Hoya

is300eater

Any chance you'll go full frame in the future? Just curious (if there's a good chance, then I say go with the 24-70mm )

is300eater

going back to your OP, I'm not sure if you knew, but the degree of bokeh or background blur (not necessarily same as the "quality" of bokeh) is detemined by several factors. 1) aperture (obviously), 2) focal length 3) distance from sensor to subject, 4) sensors size

since you're shooting an APS-C body and since both lenses in question are f/2.8 constant, we'll just skip these two

so with #2, you're going to get more background blur @70mm f2.8 than @55mm f2.8, even if you have to move back a little to frame the capture (vs being closer @55mm). So, if you like bokeh, between the 2 lenses, this may be a deciding factor.


and it looks like you've pretty much made your decision on the brand, but I'm just going to push this one more time and I promise I'll stop after this

The Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 is the only one (for Nikon) that I know of that's going to have image stabilization. And I.S. is suppose to have a 2-4 stops advantage. This means when you're shooting your nieces' recitals or perhaps your nephew's soccer games, the I.S. will come in handy. And it DOES get good reviews.

Anyways, I'm just sayin' but if you're already made the decision to only go with a Nikon lens, then that's cool

is300eater

But I have to admit, on my APS-C body, the 16-50mm f/2.8 is mounted 90% of the time

2001AudiS4

Well I went to the "local" Camera shop that I bought my camera at today. It's 30 miles away but thats ok, it where the folks are so we went for the day.

I ended up picking up the Nikon 24-70mm in the end. They did not have a 17-55 which I did not expect them to since it is not being produced anymore, but they sell used lenses as well so figured I'd ask. I have 10 days to mess with the lens to decide. So far, just from the limited few shots I took, they appear much sharper than the Sigma I've been shooting with (18-50 f/2.8. I might have misquoted the lengths of this lens above). Indoors, for regular shots, so far I have to say it was not too bad. Took some pictures at my sisters house, and at the in-laws and it felt fine.

I also picked up a used Nikon 12-24 f/4 with a Hoya UV filter for $550. I also have 10 days to decide on this. I was and am a bit nervous about it being a bit slower and my intended usage of it, but its a sharp lens and from what I know it generally goes for around $500 more than that. I plan to test it this week on a job or two to see how it does.

I am definitely looking forward to putting these two lenses through the paces. I appreciate everyone's input, even if I kinda went my own way. I do not mind spending the extra for the quality I want and with these lenses, especially the 24-70, I know I am getting the quality I've been looking for.

jupitersolo

Don't second guess yourself on this purchase, you'll be happy with both.

2001AudiS4

Thanks Jup. I didn't mean to imply that I am second guessing when mentioning the return policy. I more or less mentioned because of the fact the 12-24 is a used lens and I want a few days to shoot with it and make sure its ok. Also want to make sure it will be ok in darker rooms, since its an f/4. I know they are quality lenses though and am really looking forward to using them.

jupitersolo

In less light, a tripod will fix that problem.

2001AudiS4

That's the plan. I have an Induro AKB1 with a ballhead. Only thing I have to figure out is my camera is not working with either a IR remote or a RF remote that sits in the hot shoe and hardwires to the camera. Neither will trigger the shutter, so for now will just use a short self-timer when on the tripod. Should get decent results. Only issue could be that some areas are REALLY tight, so it could be difficult getting the tripod in. That shouldn't be too often though.

2001AudiS4

Oh, forgot. I ordered a Hoya UV filter and a B+W Kaesemann Circular Polarizer with Multi-Resistant Coating. Can't wait for the fall to try this combo out.

jupitersolo

The UV filter, useless on digital IMO. They were made for the days of film.

2001AudiS4

I agree. I got it only to protect the $1800 glass it will sit in front of. I realize the way I worded that last post that it sounded like I can't wait to try the UV filter. I meant to try the Polarizing filter and Lens combo. Can't wait for that as I believe in the fall here in Connecticut I will get some amazing results.

Sarlacc

Unless you are shooting in windy conditions in the desert....the UV will actually damage your lens if you drop it.

Trust me...got a small scratch on the front of my 70-200 when the UV filter broke. And I had already taken off all my UV filters except that one.

is300eater

after you told me that (when we met up in Dec of 2011), I stopped using them too. I DO keep one on one of my weather sealed lenses tho (if it's raining, and it rains a lot here)

Sarlacc

Yeah, I keep mine in my case now. Never replaced the one for the 70-200.

Still pissed about it when I remember...but it doesn't matter, doesn't affect the images. And since its v1 and there is a v2 out, its not like its worth anything to anyone.

2001AudiS4

That's interesting. Everything I had read before said to get one to protect the lens. Was it a fluke when you dropped it, and the way it landed that it broke and scratched the lens?

jupitersolo

But that's $1800 of glass, if you didn't buy a filter that is worth or as good as the glass that Nikon used to make your lens, then you are putting crap in front of a $1800.

The front element that you are trying to protect is MANY TIMES harder than the UV filter you're putting on the lens. Use your lens hood, it'll keep things more than 3 inches away from the front element.

jupitersolo

I have a clear filter, not UV but clear coated for digital to use if I need it, such as blowing sand and crap. UV filters do not belong on digital cameras. The algorithm used to capture your image doesn't factor for it the calculation used to produce it.

UV filters are just a way for camera stores to jack up the profit margin, in some cases 80% to make additional money when selling lenses.