Hi folks!

I know this topic has been discussed in another thread about this choice focused more on which lens is better for portraiture.

I am now in a dilema about which lens to get for events. I have the 18-70 dx and it works for me right now. I now realize that a faster lens will give me more latitude for lighting alternatives.

Just to let you know, I am considering the 28-70 over the 17-55.

Events lens? 17-55 hands down. The 28-70 is a good portrait lens but it's tough to get the subject's environment with it.

Don't worry though, you'd eventually get the 28-70 (and I have one with a good price on it), and the 12-24, and the 10.5, and the 200-400, and the 200/2, and the...

Stop!!! I just bought myself a very expensive Coolpix. One at at time Jerry!

I use 17-55 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 VR for my weddings. Those are the only two I found I ever need. You'll need the extra wide angle of the 17-55 for events especially when you're forced to tight corners and/or group shots without any more space to back into. 17 and 28 is a huge difference.

I once used an 85 1.4 but found it to restrictive... I'd rather have the zoom.

Now, if you have a 12-24 then it's another story. You're just missing the 24-28 which isn't that bad, but changing lens in the middle of the event could be problematic. If you have two bodies, then it's a different story again.

You see, there are several factors that you have to consider in your decision. Everyone here gives their own opinions but in the end, it's still up to you and what your budget and circumstances are.

for me 17-55 between the two, but that lens is X-pensive too

@ Anton Lorenzo - Just some points...

1.) Jerry basically nailed it with his post...

2.) The original killer portraiture/event lens is still the 28-70 Nikkor... Specially on the 35mm format.

3.) On the DX format however the 17-55 takes on both the 17-35 and 28-70, as Nikon's event lens...

4.) If you are not in a hurry and specially if you are using a flash most of the time... You're kit lens will still serve it's purpose...

5.) If you're leaning towards the 28-70, then you are in good company... It's a good choice in the longrun to invest in FF glass, specially if Nikon suddenly decides to also go FF.

6.) HTH :)

Thank you gentlemen for the valuable inputs.

If I get the 12-24 (most likely will) does the 28-70 become a more logical choice? I read somewhere in this forum that these two lenses added to my 80-200 f2.8 makes the Nikon Holy Trinity.

Or should I just get the 17-55 dx and do away with the 12-24?

The Holy Trinity is the 17-35, 28-70, and the 70-200VR.

With the 17-55, I'd rather add the 10.5 fishey or Sigma 10-20 then add a medium tele like a 85/1.4 or 105/2 or 105Macro-VR to round out my kit.

I feel that there's too much overlap between the 12-24 and 17-55. I also find myself shooting the wide end of the 12-24 most of the time.

I'd go for the 17-55 hands down!!! Unless there's a good 28-70 that comes around.

Having both would be perfect!!!

I feel that there's too much overlap between the 12-24 and 17-55. I also find myself shooting the wide end of the 12-24 most of the time.

Agreed. I have these 2 as well. In as much as I would like to trade the 17-55 for a 28-70 to reduce the overlap, I just can't seem to summon the will to do it.

Dindin, I have a good deal on a 28-70, buy it na para I can get the 17-55. :)

Dindin, I have a good deal on a 28-70, buy it na para I can get the 17-55. :)

Jerry, Dindin has the 28-70 already. :Grin:

For events... 17-55
For portraiture... 28-70 :)

The Holy Trinity is the 17-35, 28-70, and the 70-200VR.



Agreed! :) But there is actually another Trinity of ArchAngels but more for the Avant Garde market...

The 28 f/1.4, 85 f/1.4 and the 200 f/2.0, will comprise this set. :)

I've also been thinking of getting one of this lenses. :D Probably the 28-70 after I get the 18-200. But for events, I guess it would be the 17-55, better for group shots. :)

Agreed! :) But there is actually another Trinity of ArchAngels but more for the Avant Garde market...

The 28 f/1.4, 85 f/1.4 and the 200 f/2.0, will comprise this set. :)

Ahhh.. sweeeeet.

Dear Santa, I've been a very nice boy this year.. okay, except for that incident in.. never mind. :D

correct earl. primes.

been drooling over that 200/2VR
and i really hope nikon comes out with a 18 or 24mm f/1.4 - even in dx form.

All hands down for the 17-55dx. That's what I will get!

Thanks everyone!

FYI. A lot of owners who bought 17-55 noted how stiff the zoom ring is out of the box. It's really like that. Doc Nap & I observed it on our units but it will loosen up nicely after a couple of months of use.

Get the 17-55, the 28-70 is too long for an events lens.

FYI. A lot of owners who bought 17-55 noted how stiff the zoom ring is out of the box. It's really like that. Doc Nap & I observed it on our units but it will loosen up nicely after a couple of months of use.

Make that 6 months for me, based on my average camera use. :D

Thanks for the heads up Dave and Nap. Appreciate it gentlemen.

I'm getting the lens sometime mid-February.

hands down the 17-55. this is my most used lens, does what the 28-70 can do but wider. it yields some portraiture capability to the 28-70 though


Agreed! :) But there is actually another Trinity of ArchAngels but more for the Avant Garde market...

The 28 f/1.4, 85 f/1.4 and the 200 f/2.0, will comprise this set. :)

i beg to differ bro, there is even a more powerful set of Gods that trump this set of archangels. not so widely know but defintely has the illuminati cult status.

the tv nikkor 35mm f.9, nikkor crt 55mm f1.2, nikkor noct 58mm f1.2, nikkor repro 85mm f1:)

I've been reading up on the repor 85/1.. do you know where I can get one?

First there was the ArchAngels, then the AvantGardes, so these last set we shall call the Illuminati!

*WHEW*

I've been reading up on the repor 85/1.. do you know where I can get one?

First there was the ArchAngels, then the AvantGardes, so these last set we shall call the Illuminati!

*WHEW*

bro good luck on finding one. took me well over a year to snag one. your best bet is looking for some 1960s lithographic machine and cannibalizing the lens, if your lucky it will be a repro-nikkor.

as for the illuminati all i need is that damn tv nikkor to complete the lot!

Lithographic machine huh? Hmmm that's a good idea, my family is in the commercial printing industry, now let me start calling 'em printers. :)

Lithographic machine huh? Hmmm that's a good idea, my family is in the commercial printing industry, now let me start calling 'em printers. :)

sorry for the ot anton:) jerry, the lenses used in the commercial printing industri are printing nikkors. those have little value and use since their largets aperture is in the f22-f40 range. when i say lithographic equipment i meant the lithographic etchers used in engraving semiconductors and microchips.

Ahh semiconductor etchers.. time to call my semicon customers then!! Thanks for the tip! I hope they still have their old machines stashed away somewhere.

Ahh semiconductor etchers.. time to call my semicon customers then!! Thanks for the tip! I hope they still have their old machines stashed away somewhere.

good luck. once you find one half the battle is done:) the other half is the conversion to f mount. i can help you there

the tv nikkor 35mm f.9, nikkor crt 55mm f1.2, nikkor noct 58mm f1.2, nikkor repro 85mm f1:)

The Untouchables... :)

wait, now i'm confused. what are we talking about here now? angels and demons and untouchable/unreachable lenses?

wait, now i'm confused. what are we talking about here now?
angels and demons and untouchable/unreachable lenses?

Sorry :) I added to the Off topic discussion. It was the lens lust talking :)

sorry for the ot anton:) jerry, the lenses used in the commercial printing industri are printing nikkors. those have little value and use since their largets aperture is in the f22-f40 range. when i say lithographic equipment i meant the lithographic etchers used in engraving semiconductors and microchips.

Keep going Carlo, I love to read the disucssions!

Keep going Carlo, I love to read the disucssions!

I love to read it as well. Perhaps Carlo, or those knowledgeable in Nikon's exotics, can open up a thread discussion on it :)


*Just an Idea, so we don't OT the hell out of this thread*

The Untouchables... :)

i like it i like it:)

as for opening another thread, id love to but would probably sound like a raving mad scientist.. il bring nalang my illuminati and discuss during the next eb. fair?

i like it i like it:)

as for opening another thread, id love to but would probably sound like a raving mad scientist.. il bring nalang my illuminati and discuss during the next eb. fair?

Fair! :) Though I think just by looking at the Lust threads here were already mad... just not mad scientists yet.

OT: I've been browsing through some shots with the CRT online, I'm really impressed by it, what an amazing lens.

Now, I'm really really confused! Recently, I've decided to go for the 17-55 and I've been waiting for someone to have in stock. But I've read more regarding these two lenses which made me think more than twice. The 17-55 is good for events (which I do a lot with my family) especially for the group shots since it's wider. But I also love taking portraits especially tight shots and I've read that the 28-70 would do a better job at that. So what do I do? :)

I think I deserve to answer this because I have been forthright in my opinions. Just because I own one doesn't mean it's the absolute best at it.

The 17-55 isn't excellent for close ups.. that's MY opinion and I think others have noticed it too.

But guess what... I have a AF-D 50mm which IS dirt cheap for this purpose.

If you get a 28-70 and looking for a wide solution to supplement it... I don't think any of the Nikkor prime wide angles are cheap... heck they are even pricier.

Sir Dave,

Thanks for your opinion! :) So what you're trying to say is that it would be better to get the 17-55 and use a 50mm for the close-ups? Or did I miss something?

Yes... that's exactly it.

Got it! Thanks again Sir Dave! :)

same conclusion i have with my "lowly" tamron 17-50mm f/2.8... better to use the "cheap" 50mm f/1.8 prime for close-up portraits.

Great!!! Thanks, Chewy! :)

17-55, although the 28-70 is also a good mid tele. but i think the 17-55 would be more versatile...:Grin: