The New Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ED AF-S Nikkor Lens or 17-55mm AF-S DX f/2.8

[CyberStorm]

I am interested in purchasing this lens for my D300 camera but I wanted to know whether the 1.5x conversion ratio would be present since the lens is not rated a DX lens. I currently use DX lenses, but for this lens will the 28mm work at 28mm focal length on the D300, or will that convert to 42mm?

Or shall I get the 17-55mm AF-S DX f/2.8 instead? Thanks for any and all suggestions.

[Firedog28]

I am interested in purchasing this lens for my D300 camera but I wanted to know whether the 1.5x conversion ratio would be present since the lens is not rated a DX lens. I currently use DX lenses, but for this lens will the 28mm work at 28mm focal length on the D300, or will that convert to 42mm?

Or shall I get the 17-55mm AF-S DX f/2.8 instead? Thanks for any and all suggestions.

A non-DX lens is a 1.5 conversion throughout the range, so the 24-70 will look like a 36-105 on your camera...

[erichlund]

All lens focal lengths for SLR type cameras, digital or film, are quoted at the focal length of the lens. This is essentially the distance from the focal plane (film or sensor) to the center of focus. On a zoom this will vary with the zoom setting. This is independant of whether the lens is mounted on a film camera, a digital camera, or whether the sensor is an APS-C (DX) or full frame (FX) type. DX lenses only guarantee an image circle large enough for a DX sensor.

So, on a DX camera, you may use either a DX lens or a full frame lens, but you must apply the 1.5x conversion to determine what the image is cropped to by the sensor. So, on a DX camera the 24-70 is effectively 36-105 while the 17-55 is effectively a 25.5-82.5.

On an FX camera or Film camera, the 24-70 is a 24-70, and the 17-55 is mostly useless, because it will not display a full image circle.

However, the D3 has a DX mode that will crop the image from the useable portion of the sensor. Even if it did not have this, you could do so manually. If you use the crop mode, again, you have to apply the crop factor, so no, it does not give a true 17mm wide angle image.

[Visual Reality]

17-55 gets my vote, if you can swing it and think the Nikon is worth 2-3x the price over the 3rd party vendors.

[Classic96]

Another option is finding a low miles 28-70 f/2.8. I picked mine up for $900 and couldn't be happier. I've also used the 17-55 on this same camera body, and I feel the 28-70 is better at all equal focal lengths. I prefer to have more on the long end for portraits so it was worth giving up some on the wide end for my needs.

[Rooz]

there is no doubt that both the 28-70 and 24-70 are better lens' than the 17-55 performance wise. the 24-70 is actually the best 2.8 zoom lens on the market for that focal length bar none. judging from classic's recent work, i'd be getting the 28-70, (or 24-70), if weight and budget is not an issue. thats a steal at that price aswell. wow.

i havent seen 17-55 IQ that matches the quality classic is pulling out of his lens. i'll have my hands on a 17-55 pretty soon and i'll run some comparisons of it against the 35 and 50mm primes.

[XaiLo]

The 28-70mm at $900 is a reason enough to give pause.

[Visual Reality]

i havent seen 17-55 IQ that matches the quality classic is pulling out of his lens.
http://chrisross.smugmug.com/ ;)

[T06]

The 28-70mm at $900 is a reason enough to give pause.

They paused alright , to the extent that they stopped making it.:D

[T06]

http://chrisross.smugmug.com/ ;)

There are two zoom lenses in the nikon range that I have observed & thought wow. It's because they do, it's not because of processing.

[Rooz]

http://chrisross.smugmug.com/ ;)

bad example...chris could even take hi-quality images with a canon. thats how good he is. :p

[XaiLo]

They paused alright , to the extent that they stopped making it.:D

Well Nikon had to give us a good reason to spend yet another $1700 :p

[T06]

Well Nikon had to give us a good reason to spend yet another $1700 :p

Yeah. I didn't mean to sound demeaning, you are right about the 'EXTRA' though. Seems everytime I see a lens that i get the jonses for it costs shitloads.

[T06]

So, on a DX camera, you may use either a DX lens or a full frame lens, but you must apply the 1.5x conversion to determine what the image is cropped to by the sensor. So, on a DX camera the 24-70 is effectively 36-105 while the 17-55 is effectively a 25.5-82.5.
Erich....
Correct if I'm wrong but isn't the 17-55mm DX a lens that was developed for the DSLR 1.5X crop factor to give a true focus range or have i got this wrong?

[Visual Reality]

It doesn't matter what its developed for, a crop sensor will always be a crop sensor. The 17-55 is 25.5-82.5 on every Nikon DSLR except for the D3.

"DX" just means it has a reduced image circle to project onto the smaller sensor.

[Classic96]

I could be wrong, but the 17-55 on the D3 won't even work unless you have the camera set to DX format.

I understand the 28-70 is a not as good as the new 24-70. But at half the cost, it gives us aspiring amateur-professionals a chance to get very high quality shots on a reasonable budget.

[Visual Reality]

It will work, but you will get massive vignetting because of the reduced image circle. It won't project onto the entire sensor.

[erichlund]

Kev, I think you mean focal range. However, no, the focal range of the lens is based on it's actual focal length. The cropped sensor of APS-C cameras can only see a smaller portion of the image circle, so DX lenses are designed to only provide that image circle, though some will provide a full image in some parts of their focal range. The ultra wide Tokina 12-24 comes to mind.

The 17-55 does not stop working on the D3 under any circumstance. I think the switch to DX mode is automatic, but I also think it can be controlled. Until we know someone with one, we won't really know. However, if you do get it to work in full frame mode, there would be some serious vignetting. ;)

The 28-70, otherwise known as the beast due to it's inordinate size, is a great lens. It's qualified as one of the "legendary" Nikkors. Yes, the 24-70 is better (and HEAVIER!!!), but that does not, in itself, detract from the fact that the 28-70 is a superb chunk of glass and metal. While the price of available new 28-70s is going down, this will probably be one of those lenses that eventually costs more than when it did new. So, if you are going to get one, now is a good time.