Nikkor 17-55 f2.8
Discussion
Boring post follows, please stop reading here if you are offended by the techy crap...
Circumstances have conspired to leave me with sufficient funds to get myself a D200. Now aside from not needing one over the D70, I want one, and my mind is pretty much made up on that front.
I'm wavering about lens choice. I've never felt that the 18-70 that came with my camera was particularly reliable, and if anything I suspect the D200 will show this up even more. As such I'm probably going to flog it along with the D70, and get something new.
Warehouse express are doing two deals at the moment, one with a 24-85mm and one with the 17-55mm. Both appear to be superior to the 18-70 kit lens.
The 17-55 is a lot more expensive - does anyone have one and is it as good as it's made out to be?
Of course I could forget the D200 and buy some tasty glass instead... decisions decisions...
Circumstances have conspired to leave me with sufficient funds to get myself a D200. Now aside from not needing one over the D70, I want one, and my mind is pretty much made up on that front.
I'm wavering about lens choice. I've never felt that the 18-70 that came with my camera was particularly reliable, and if anything I suspect the D200 will show this up even more. As such I'm probably going to flog it along with the D70, and get something new.
Warehouse express are doing two deals at the moment, one with a 24-85mm and one with the 17-55mm. Both appear to be superior to the 18-70 kit lens.
The 17-55 is a lot more expensive - does anyone have one and is it as good as it's made out to be?
Of course I could forget the D200 and buy some tasty glass instead... decisions decisions...
Yo
Sorry - just saw this thread. Most landscape pics I've taken for the last year have been with the 17-55 2.8 (www.stevecarter.com if you've forgotten). It's extremely highly rated (I'm sure you've read the reviews) and I have no problem with it's optics - right to the edges, and excellent in dodgy light.
It is, however, heavy and large... But then so is a TVR.
Pays your money etc...
edited to add... speak to the Nikon owners club (Grays of Westminster - google it, think its www.GraysofWestminster.com ) - they know almost everything about everything Nikon and are very helpful. Especially if you have money to spend
>> Edited by GetCarter on Sunday 9th April 17:23
Sorry - just saw this thread. Most landscape pics I've taken for the last year have been with the 17-55 2.8 (www.stevecarter.com if you've forgotten). It's extremely highly rated (I'm sure you've read the reviews) and I have no problem with it's optics - right to the edges, and excellent in dodgy light.
It is, however, heavy and large... But then so is a TVR.
Pays your money etc...
edited to add... speak to the Nikon owners club (Grays of Westminster - google it, think its www.GraysofWestminster.com ) - they know almost everything about everything Nikon and are very helpful. Especially if you have money to spend
>> Edited by GetCarter on Sunday 9th April 17:23
poah said:
useles fact - are grays not mormons?
Who knows, but they are Nikonites of the highest order . . .
Anyways I have one of these lenses, I think it takes nice pics, it's very solid but of course this makes it heavy and it's quite large. I've never seen any nasty lens defects with it and have been using it on my D70 and latterly D2x for about a year . . . I'm happy with it . . . and didn't pay anything like the book price for it either . . .
Fd
The lens certainly seems to be a winner. I'm struggling to call it between that one and the 28-70 f2.8. Both appear to be top class. Question is whether I'll get buyers remorse before or after I splash the cash.
THe fly in the ointment is the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8... At one third of the price it's still supposed to be a stonkingly good lens, if not quite in the same league.
THe fly in the ointment is the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8... At one third of the price it's still supposed to be a stonkingly good lens, if not quite in the same league.
A toughie. I'll tell you what I am doing. I shoot with a D2x now, and had the 17-80 from the D70 kit too 
The 17-55 is an awesome bit of glass, pricy, but not excessively. Image quality from the lens is very good. That said remember a zoom lens is never as good as a decent prime.
If money was not an object I'd have got a 17-55 and a 70-200 VR together to give me a long reach - thats 2 grand of lenses there.
I decided to get the new 18-200 VR and a prime. The 18-200 VR is awesome for the money, I really like it (and it will focus @200mm within about 12"!!). It's no 17-55, but it is nicer than the 18-70 and with the VR and extra reach for an all in one lens I think it fits the bill nicely for me. A shame its not slightly faster, but hey ho.
For the prime I'm thinking of the sigma 30mm AFS though I havent got that yet. The sigma 30mm prime (f1.4) should do for my party shots and the like, and should be tack sharp, though reviews and images I have seen suggest otherwise. The jury is still out. Anyway, I'll try to get an approx 30mm prime that will do me for low light and critically sharp images.
I think then I'll have a great day to day super zoom, and a prime for when the feeling takes me. No doubt I'll probably end up picking a 17-55 in the future though
>> Edited by stuthemong on Monday 10th April 13:49
The 17-55 is an awesome bit of glass, pricy, but not excessively. Image quality from the lens is very good. That said remember a zoom lens is never as good as a decent prime.
If money was not an object I'd have got a 17-55 and a 70-200 VR together to give me a long reach - thats 2 grand of lenses there.
I decided to get the new 18-200 VR and a prime. The 18-200 VR is awesome for the money, I really like it (and it will focus @200mm within about 12"!!). It's no 17-55, but it is nicer than the 18-70 and with the VR and extra reach for an all in one lens I think it fits the bill nicely for me. A shame its not slightly faster, but hey ho.
For the prime I'm thinking of the sigma 30mm AFS though I havent got that yet. The sigma 30mm prime (f1.4) should do for my party shots and the like, and should be tack sharp, though reviews and images I have seen suggest otherwise. The jury is still out. Anyway, I'll try to get an approx 30mm prime that will do me for low light and critically sharp images.
I think then I'll have a great day to day super zoom, and a prime for when the feeling takes me. No doubt I'll probably end up picking a 17-55 in the future though
>> Edited by stuthemong on Monday 10th April 13:49
Well the VR does add a few stops, lots actually I'd agree with their claim of 4 by my tests, but 1/2 sec @f8 is a different image to 1/10 @f2.8. If you are doing any sports photography a faster lens is much nicer (unless you are shooting panning shots, where the VR helps create great shots).
I think the lens is great for what it is, remember it's only a £550 lens, with £300 worth of VR on it, so you cant expect miracles from the optics. That said, I love 1/6th or so long exposures tack sharp, hand held - it's a nice trick A great all round lens (especially with it's close focus ability @200mm!), will blow up nicely (good detail), but definitely lacks bokeh smoothness so a critical eye will dislike that trait.
Stu
>> Edited by stuthemong on Wednesday 12th April 23:52
I think the lens is great for what it is, remember it's only a £550 lens, with £300 worth of VR on it, so you cant expect miracles from the optics. That said, I love 1/6th or so long exposures tack sharp, hand held - it's a nice trick
A great all round lens (especially with it's close focus ability @200mm!), will blow up nicely (good detail), but definitely lacks bokeh smoothness so a critical eye will dislike that trait. Stu
>> Edited by stuthemong on Wednesday 12th April 23:52
stuthemong said:
Looks good. The sigm 10-20 is ok for sure (build quality isnt superb, but its good VFM). I've not played with the 28-70
arrives on saturday - the sigma is because I often find myself wanting wider angle, but can't justify the Nikon 10.5mm fisheye when the sigma is so much more versatile.
Having read lots and lots of reviews and thought very carefully I decided that the 28-70 was a slightly better prospect than the 17-55 for my needs. time will tell if that was a good decision or not.
All arrives on saturday in any case.
stuthemong said:
well a 10-20 is a very different lens to a 10.5 fisheye, very different!!! I'm sure you'll get on great with the 10-20, it's very easy to use. If you want to go crazy get a pelling 8mm for £150 odd, not the greatest but very wide angle
That's interesting, I'd just assumed that the focal length dictated the angle of view and so a 10mm and a 10.5mm would give similar results. Clearly the "fisheye" definition adds something extra, off to pbase to look at some examples!
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff