Nikon 24-70mm or 17-55mm for D7000?
Quick question; I have a D7000 and am unsure whether I should purchase the 24-70mm or 17-55mm. I know you might say that it mainly depends on what I wanna shoot… Mainly outdoor family portraits, the occasion wedding (with other lenses of course)…
Producing the best quality images is a priority for me. How do the lenses compare?
I plan on purchasing the D700 in the future but it won't be for a while… Maybe 18-24 months.
The 24-70mm/2.8 without doubt. It's a totally awesome lens; a tad long on crop frame as a walkaround lens (and too heavy for that purpose anyway) but just right when your focus is on people photography.
Also, i wouldn't spend $1200 on a dedicated crop frame lens such as the 17-55mm/2.8 anyway even without the plan to move to full frame. Since you do intend to upgrade to full frame within two years, that makes it a total no-brainer. Would it make sense for you to dish out $1200 on a lens that you won't be able to use properly in two years anymore (or rather, auto-cropped on your nice full frame camera)? Most certainly not.
The 24-70mm/2.8 also is superior to the other lens in terms of image quality:
http://www.slrgear.com/...129/cat/13
http://www.slrgear.com/...121/cat/13
Regarding weddings:
Take a look at this article… Note that it consists of several pages, the link to the other pages is at the very bottom and easy to miss.
http://www.rokknikonorfiles.com/Wedding101-page1.html
The Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 - no question.
I'm with Jens and the others… The plans to go full-frame in the next two years is what seals the deal for me. The 17-55mm is admittedly overpriced for what it is and Nikon's 24-70mm, as one of Nikon's newer lenses, benefits heavily from advances in design and materials that have come along since the 17-55mm was released. If you find that you need something wider to compliment the 24-70mm on your D7000, consider Tokina's 11-16mm f/2.8 or Nikon's 10-24mm DX format zoom.
The 17-55 is no slouch, far from it. The 24-70 is awesome but can be intimidating for the model. PErsonally I'd prefer the focal length of the 24-70.
The reasons a few others stated not to buy it (it's a DX lens) could actually work in your favour. There's a lot of used 17-55 in very good condition going for good prices these days.
Of course if this is your first DSLR any of these would be overkill. Get your feet wet with a decent lens like the 16-85 or the 18-105 before you tackle the big guns.
They are both pro caliber lenses. The main difference is that the 17-55 is a DX lens, and the 24-70 is a full frame lens.
If used on the D7000, the 17-55 will be 25.5~82.5mm, which is more or less equivalent to the 24-70mm lens on a full frame camera.
Yes, that is right - regardless of whether a lens is DX or full frame, the apparent focal length of either lens on a DX cropped camera is up-shifted by 1.5x. The only difference in the two lenses is the DX has smaller diameter glass due to the crop factor.
So when you put the 24-70 on your D7000, it will upshift as well.
The 17-55 is intended for DX.
The 24-70 is intended for Full Frame.
If you were staying with the DX format, I'd recommend the 17-55, but since you see a full frame camera in the future, I'd buy for the future, and go with the 24-70.
By the way, the D700 looks to be replaced this month. Nikon will announce two new DSLRs on Aug 24th., and one popular rumor is the D700 replacement. I would suspect the new camera to cost about the same amount as Nikon's 6 DSLRs are marketed to cover certain price ranges.
The 17-55 is a DX lens and will not cover a full frame FX camera like the D700/D3. The 24-70 is an FX lens that will work on both your existing D300 as well as any future full frame upgrade.
The choice is yours as they are both stonking lenses.