24-70 f/2.8 on D300 - experiences & opinions?

Moose Petersen is another who doesn't like it. He just posted a video review of the 24-70, very positive as always, and towards the end says that if you use a DX camera he "highly recommends" that you do not buy that lens. For what it's worth I agree, I would never be happy with a 24mm wide end on my main zoom, I use the 16-24mm range far too much to want to have to change lenses for it. Of course everybody's different, maybe it would be perfect for you.

Check out Moose's review here, if interested:

http://www.moosenewsblog.com/

Both the 17-55 and the 24-70 are top of the line lenses. They are both quite solid/good. The 24-70 might be a bit better overall, since it's newer and has Nano coating (it doesn't ghost as much...) I use the 24-70 on my 2 DX cameras, and find it to be an excellent lens for candid portraits (the extra 15mm on the longer end could be nice since its perspective might be more ideal for certain types of portrait subjects...). For event, PJ, and landscape works, the 17-55 is obviously better. The 17-55 is nice to have on a DX camera when you can't step back any further, when you're busy shooting an event/PJ assignment, and when you want the WA perspective for certain shots (especially landscapes...).

*I do own a 18-55 VR, which provides with WA coverage.

I cannot comment on D300+24-70 combo. But 24-70 is the best lens (in terms of color, sharpness, flare, contrast) I have ever used.

Jennifer
I have owned & used both the 17-55 & the 24-70 lenses & have used them both on the D300. I like (or love if you so choose) them both. 17-55 often felt too short, but then the 24-70 might not feel wide enoughfor some.
In the long run - after buying the 24-70mm I sold the 17-55 & am very happy with it. I love the lens - - yet the 17-55 is not as long (which I do miss) - & I have the 14-24 for covering the extreme wide angle shots.
To each their own - granted the 17-55 is an excellent choice for the D300 - -
JMHO
Lil :-) who will not give up her 24-70mm f/2.8

I have used the 28-70 extensively on DX cameras, not the 24-70, but I would still take that over the 17-55 for what you do. If you are shooting weddings, I would go for the 17-55 (or more likely buy a full frame body) but I always found the 28-70 to be perfect for portraits, even on DX. Once you go too much wider than that you are getting into a funny focal length to shoot people in. I always had an 18-70 or 12-24 around if I needed it, but rarely did I ever use them for portraits.

Moose Peterson is a landscape guy, from what I remember, and I would never recommend that lens for a landscape shooter on DX... but dont put too much weight into that if you arent shooting the way he does.

Jennifer: Are you renting from Tempe Camera? If so, I was under the impression that they had the lens from time to time during the middle of an average week, while it is almost impossible to get except far in advance on the weekend. For the record, I live in the Tempe area.

I recently agonized over the same choice, and I actually made both of them in a way. I initially ordered the 24-70 from B&H and then cancelled it the next day, unable to really feel confident about it (also had ordered an SB-900, which I particularly changed my mind about after making the order). While I was making up my mind further, I did some shooting that really called for a relatively wide-angle zoom, and that helped tip me in the direction of the 17-55. I've had the lens for a few weeks now, and there have been times where I really wish I had gone with the 24-70. It has only been available for a very brief time (probably just a few hours one day last week) since I changed my order, so I may not have been able to in any event. I'm constantly running up against the 55mm limit. But, there have also been several occasions where I've needed every bit of the 17-55's wide angle side and where the 24mm simply wouldn't have been enough without switching to, say, a 12-24mm lens.

As I'm planning to move to the D700 whenever it's feasible for me to do so, and when I feel like I'm ready for it (I do a great deal of low-light shooting, and the high-ISO capabilities would be hugely welcome), I think the 24-70 may have been a better fit for me. I'd say if FX is in your forseeable future that you probably ought to go with the 24-70mm. If you plan to stay with DX for awhile, the 17-55 would serve you well.

I've experienced the same fringing on backlights that you mentioned with the 17-55, and it's good to hear a similar experience about it. Not just my copy, it would seem. The 24-70 is a renowned lens, but it's also almost five hundred dollars more expensive than the 17-55 at its lowest price (B&H). The 17-55 is extremely solid and well constructed (I learned this first hand recently), and is one of the best documentary/journalism-type zoom lenses available.

Go with the lens that meets your current and expected needs best. Both feel natural on a D300.

I'm another happy 24-70/D300 user. I shoot people and pets mostly and not events and am happy to give up the super wide end in exchange for the 70mm, which is where I use it the most. There are plenty of wide zooms to choose from when the need arises.

One reason I haven't been (too) tempted by FX is the lack of a top quality zoom with a range that matches the 24-70 on DX.

I have the 17-55mm and the 24-85 2.8-4. I find that often 24mm is not wide enough on DX, for example for groups. I often use the 17-55 in the 17mm-24mm range.
WHen I go to full frame then I think the 24-70 woul be a good choice but for DX 24mm is not wide enough.

FWIW, I have a 24-85 f/2.8-4 that pretty much sits on the shelf simply because it isn't wide enough for me with the D300. However, if you prefer shooting people over group shots and scenics, the 24-70 might well be a better choice than the 17-55. I use the wide end too much to consider the 24-70 as a replacement but perhaps you wouldn't.