Nikon 17 to 55 mm f2. 8 or full frame

[Wildlife]

Hi everyone like most people I am getting slowly torn between my happy life with a d300 and the full frame world. I currently have a D300 with 70 to 200 mm vr f2.8 v1 lens and an 18 to 200 mm vr lens. I would like to get a better quality lens for closer work hence the title but like many the full frame issue keeps sitting In the background. An 17 to 55 mm Nikon lens is an aps lens only.
Would appreciate to hear from others who have arrived where I am and their views of the lens or whether they just decided to consider to join the full frame group and only buy lenses that would enable them to move in that direction.

[Film Street]

It's an excellent lens. If you're happy with the 300 (a great camera that should last you many years) then consider the 17-55 2.8. It's a long term purchase. If you use it for years you can justify the price as it won't be an easy lens to sell.

[Wildlife]

Your answer hit the nail on the head, it's cementing my DX position

[dunnart]

I agree with Film Street, the 17-55 is a top of the line lens. Given your current lens lineup and good camera, I'd stay with DX and buy the 17-55.

[Wildlife]

Steve
thanks for your reply should stop looking at photo magazines and buy a decent printer to show off all of the photographs I have taken over the years

[Film Street]

It's a common path for people to think about FF cameras. I've used a lot of Nikons and when I look through my catalog, the D300 stands out. It really is a great camera and worth keeping. If you want a full frame as well, get yourself an F80. They are fantastic, reliable, fun and can be bought for next to nothing.

[Wildlife]

I am trying to keep my options open but in reality that never really works. It really comes down to staying DX for a couple more years rather than looking at FF. this then dictates to some extent my lens choice.

[Tommo1965]

if you are already looking at FF as a possible next move...buy a 17-35..they work really well on a DX camera and will also be great on a FF..and is equal in quality to the 17-55..also grab a 50mm prime cheap and great IQ/sharpness

I just wouldn't buy a DX only lens..its too limiting if you have a body change down the track ..

[virgal_tracy]

I agree with Tommo in that if you have any intention of heading down the FF track then buy lenses that you can use with both formats. 24-70 on full frame will be equivalent to 17-55 on DX sensor (approx.). The 17-35 is a wonderful lens as is the 16-35VR.

You have plenty of wonderful lenses to choose from that will suit your purposes.

[old dog]

I would find it extremely difficult to part with my 17-55. On the camera most of the time. If unsure about the FF thing, why don`t you dig deep and get the 24-70.

[CarlR]

I'm currently using a DX format paired with the 24-70mm as I wanted to keep my FF options open come upgrade time. If you can come up with the cash and justify it to the financial controller, the 24-70mm is brilliant.

My philosophy has been to make the investment once....

[I @ M]

In perspective and without any sarcasm or malice.

You have a very good body in the D300. It is worth very little on the S/H market. Keep it as a very usable camera for years to come.
Buy lenses that will work on an FX body if and when you decide to buy one.
You have some very good choices available in similar focal lengths to that which you desire in the 17-35 Nikkor as Tommo suggested ^, the 16-35 Nikkor or maybe a Tokina 16-28 or 17-35.
You already own an excellent lens in the 70-200 which is going to work perfectly on both formats.
Maximise your savings with a good lens choice and ignore suggestions to use old film cameras that will only add to the cost of the venture.

[Wildlife]

Thanks everyone, I have considered the 17 to 35 mm f2.8 and the 16 to 35mm f4, choice is giving me a headache. I like to walk and take shots so the f2.8 is appealing but the vr would have its moments as well.
has anyone owned or used either or both of these lenses?

[AVALANCHE]

Hi mate,

I am in the exact same boat as you!

I am missing that mid-zoom range from my lens collection and am torn between both lenses also.

I am considering the D700 to go with my D7000 eventually for the benefit of full frame which makes me want to lean towards the 24-70mm.

The small format has the benefit keeping in mind that for your telezoom you can get an extra 100mm if you have something like the 70-200mm, so effectively 300mm, but the trade off is less speed.

The 24-70 will still work great on your DX (I tried it out the other day in a camera store, loved it) and will be ready for FX should you do it.

There isn't much difference in them, both lenses will outlive whatever bodies we have by decades. I'm thinking I'll go the 24-70mm.

[Wildlife]

Thanks for the reply it will be a challenging decision, part of the problem is the 24 to 70 is really a 36 to 100 on dx which is an odd zoom whilst the 16 to 35 is 24 to 52. Just have to keep thinking about what my real use is of either lens