jabbathehutt
newbie
Reged: 13/01/2008
Posts: 8
|
|
Hi
This is my first post on the forum.
I am just about to get a Nikon D300. I have a D200 with a Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G AF-S DX.
I also have an old Nikon 70 - 200mm F4, a Sigma 10-20mm and a Nikon 50mm 1.8 prime, along with a couple of other lenses.
I want a versatile, good quality lens that I can go walkabout with for those days where there might be photographic opportunities but you don't want to lug all the gear around.
My question is: Is the Nikon 17-55MM F2.8 G AF-S DX going to give me significantly better results than the 18-70DX? I've read good reviews about both lenses but can't believe that the optics are as good on a lens that is a quarter of the price of the other.
I have also read that there is some CA on the 17-55mm but the general opinion seems to be that it is an excellent lens. At between £800 and a £1000 it isn't cheap.
Having said all of this I've found the 18-70 lens really good, hence the reason for my question. Is the upgrade worth it?
|
Ian_A
Avocadopearaphobe
Reged: 02/09/2002
Posts: 8028
Loc: Horwich UK
|
|
The modest maximum aperture of the 18-70 helps keep the cost down. Do you often find you need a wider aperture lens?
--------------------
Ian A 
|
Mark_Norton
Reged: 29/06/2002
Posts: 1197
Loc: London, UK
|
|
I can understand that it might seem ludicrous to pay 3 or 4 times for a lens which is functionally similar to the one you have now but as Huw has said elsewhere, with lenses, you get what you pay for. Eeking out that extra image quality and robustness costs in terms of materials, labour and complexity. That's why, say, a Leica 28mm f2 lens costs more than twice what even this zoom costs.
I rate the 17-55 f2.8 highly, it's firmly in Nikon's top drawer line of lenses and you will not be disappointed with it. It's my "standard" lens on a D2x. My only caution would be that if you think a FF camera features at all in your future, you might want to avoid DX lenses simply because they do not allow you to take full advantage of the full frame.
--------------------
Mark
Edited by Mark_Norton (13/01/2008 19:12)
|
GeoffR
Reged: 31/05/2003
Posts: 3938
Loc: Bucks
|
|
If you want a faster lens but don't want to pay £900 for it may I suggest the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX.This lens, in its latest incarnation, has HSM focusing and is capable of very high image quality for less than £400. Is it as good as the Nikon? I can't say but it is cheaper by a significant amount and mine is definitely a high performer all be it mine is the first version without HSM.
|
jabbathehutt
newbie
Reged: 13/01/2008
Posts: 8
|
|
Thanks for your replies.
It's not that I don't want to spend the extra money - I just don't want to spend it if it's not worth the extra. It seems from the replies that the extra is worth it. I really like to buy something only once!
Generally I like a fast lens as I hate lugging round a tripod. I know the purists among you will probably throw up your hands in horror but I do like the freedom of 'hand holding'. The main reason I'm upping to a D300 is for the ability to use higher ISOs before noise becomes an issue.
I have a Nikon 105mm 2.8 VR Micro and I love it but obviously it's a bit limited in every day use. The Nikon 50mm 1.8 is a cracking lens but again is not as versatile as a zoom, even a short zoom.
I had a Sigma 18 - 200mm, but was so disappointed with the quality that I sold it. However, the Sigma 10 - 20mm is a great lens. I haven't used the Nikon 12 - 24 so can't compare them.
Will I eventually go for a full frame...? It's so tempting, but realistically I don't really need to at the moment. I don't sell anything, I haven't even tried, but I do love what I do, which is photographing the world around me. It is very much my hobby. I probably could afford a full frame but I kind of think that if I splash out on a D3 then I have to justify it...and I can't. I may do it in the future...maybe? But not at the moment.
There are a couple of Nikon 17-55MM F2.8 G AF-S DX on Ebay at the moment but I've also seen them new for about £749 - £799.
If I take the same photo with a Nikon 17-55MM F2.8 G AF-S DX or a 18 - 70mm will I notice a big difference?
|
Dom_Rivers
addict
Reged: 03/04/2007
Posts: 417
|
|
If I take the same photo with a Nikon 17-55MM F2.8 G AF-S DX or a 18 - 70mm will I notice a big difference?
What a question!!
Head on over to SLRgear.com and you'll find the mtf charts for both lenses
What you'll notice is that the 18-70 has a sweet spot at around F8 and about 50mm where it really is very good, little distortion and pretty sharp but you'll also notice that it has areas of weakness, wide open at each of the focal extremes for example, with the 17-55 you get less variance and that's what the pro's are paying the money for.
It's pretty damn sharp wide open (F2.8) at 17mm and just gets sharper stopped down a bit, what problems it does have ( a bit of vignetting and linear distortion) are easy software fixes.
So in answer to your question, at 50mm and F8 there would be little difference, at F3.5 and 18mm it would be pretty marked. And that's why it's so dear.
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showcat.p...all&ppuser=
|
jabbathehutt
newbie
Reged: 13/01/2008
Posts: 8
|
|
Quote:
If I take the same photo with a Nikon 17-55MM F2.8 G AF-S DX or a 18 - 70mm will I notice a big difference?
What a question!!Quote:
Oh God...do I sound really dumb?
Thanks for your reply. I did look at the website and it has probably helped consolidate my gut feeling. I suppose I was hoping that someone would say that I wouldn't notice a difference but my gut feeling told me that I would.
I have looked at Ken Rockwell's site and I'm not sure what to make of him. He is probably very genuine but he does seem to be a constant 'advert' so I'm not sure whether to take it all with a pinch of salt.
Sorry to be so persistant about this but I hate spending alot of money unless I think that it's really worth it. But even more, I hate spending less money and then regretting not having spent a bit more to get the better thing.
|
Dom_Rivers
addict
Reged: 03/04/2007
Posts: 417
|
|
Oh Ken's Ok, he's rather of the mind that a Nikon D40 with an 18-200vr lens is all 99% of us really need, and he's probably right but where's the fun in that.
Fact of the matter is that a constant wide aperture is nice to have for low light work and photography where you wish to be selective about the depth of field but for most of us it's not essential and for non pro's (or skint people like me) there are other choices anyway, the Sigma 18-50HSM F2.8 and Tamron 17-50 DI F2.8 are both around the £250 mark and are very well reviewed and the £450.00 Tokina 16-50 F2.8 has pro quality build too.
Edited by Dom_Rivers (14/01/2008 00:04)
|
El Sid
Going potty
Reged: 14/04/2003
Posts: 9546
Loc: Sussex-by-the-Sea
|
|
Quote:
If I take the same photo with a Nikon 17-55MM F2.8 G AF-S DX or a 18 - 70mm will I notice a big difference?
How long is a piece of string?...
A lot depends on what you do with your pictures. If they only appear on the web or your monitor then the answer is mostly no (unless you go pixel peeping). Even if you print the whole image at A3 I doubt that the difference is that noticeable at normal viewing distances or at anything other than wide open. Where the differences are likely to be noticeable is at really large print sizes or, especially, images which have been cropped where magnifying good pixels is a lot better than magnifying acceptable ones.
Having read this thread I suspect that you might have acquired a slight dose of kit envy - a common enough affliction... 
Let me put a question to you. Could you live with a shorter lens? I went from an 18-50mm (albeit a budget one) to a 17-70mm. That extra 20mm, for my way of working, makes the 17-70 far superior for a general purpose walkabout lens (and that's discounting the improved optical performance). Consider then whether you would be happy to lose 15mm of reach (equivalent to 45mm in 35mm film terms) in exchange for some additional image quality (which you may not even get the full benefit of anyway).
--------------------
Nigel
Completely BSRIPN 
ElSid Gallery
A camera in the hand is more fun than one in the cupboard........
|
jabbathehutt
newbie
Reged: 13/01/2008
Posts: 8
|
|
Quote:
Let me put a question to you. Could you live with a shorter lens?
This is a very pertinent point. And something that I've thought quite a bit about. Having just bought the D300 yesterday, I've been out and about today taking pictures of anything and everything with the 18 - 70mm lens. Quality wise they look pretty good to me. The only faster lenses that I have are a 105mm 2.8 micro and a 50mm 1.8. These are both superior quality but being primes it's impossible to compare them with the zoom.
I tend to crop quite a bit as I'm not brave enough to 'push myself to the front' for the best vantage point.
I enter the local camera club competitions (with some reasonable success) and I usually give friends and family photos at Christmas and Birthdays. I make cards from photos. I've been asked for copies of photos from people at work but I've never done anything more than that. To be honest I don't know how to sell them and I'm probably not good enough anyway. I enjoy the processing and do a lot of 'Photoshopping'.
Do I suffer from 'gear envy'? Not sure. Possibly, but I am a girl. I like shopping! 
Maybe I'll try a couple of cheeky bids on ebay and see if I get lucky. Doubtful though, anything I bid on seems to go for a fortune.
Thanks for all your replies. Nice place here, isn't it?
|
El Sid
Going potty
Reged: 14/04/2003
Posts: 9546
Loc: Sussex-by-the-Sea
|
|
Quote:
I tend to crop quite a bit as I'm not brave enough to 'push myself to the front' for the best vantage point.
Maybe something a bit longer might be more cost effective. I will say that in some situations I'm more likely to take a 28-105 or 35-135mm lens if I think I'm going to need a bit of extra reach...
Quote:
Do I suffer from 'gear envy'? Not sure. Possibly, but I am a girl. I like shopping!
Gear envy is an Equal Opportunities affliction I reckon...
--------------------
Nigel
Completely BSRIPN
ElSid Gallery
A camera in the hand is more fun than one in the cupboard........
|
Towershot
old hand
Reged: 19/03/2007
Posts: 773
Loc: Lancashire, U,K.
|
|
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do I suffer from 'gear envy'? Not sure. Possibly, but I am a girl. I like shopping!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gear envy is an Equal Opportunities affliction I reckon...
Have I got to much gear ?? No No, I Need much, much ,more!!
Two types of togs, those with enough equipment ,sick if you ask me.
And those whom ALWAYS need that extra special lens, Now thats the way to keep the wheels of commerce turning.
--------------------
Got a good camera, now to get a good photographer.:~<
Rick
My Flickr
|
jabbathehutt
newbie
Reged: 13/01/2008
Posts: 8
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do I suffer from 'gear envy'? Not sure. Possibly, but I am a girl. I like shopping!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gear envy is an Equal Opportunities affliction I reckon...
Have I got to much gear ?? No No, I Need much, much ,more!!
Two types of togs, those with enough equipment ,sick if you ask me.
And those whom ALWAYS need that extra special lens, Now thats the way to keep the wheels of commerce turning.
Well thank goodness for that! I'm not alone. And thanks for making me giggle...told you I was a girl
I'm going to have to keep practising with the lenses I've got for now.
A 17 - 55mm sold on Ebay recently for over £600. I've seen a new one at Park St Cameras for £749. Now that might be a bargain, or I might go out wishing I'd got the extra 15mm or so. I do have a 70 - 210 old Nikon as well but it's not the delicious 2.8.
I'll let you know what I buy. A longer lens probably is more sensible. I don't know if I can afford a longer fast lens though.
Oh well - back to the shops before the sales finish!
|
El Sid
Going potty
Reged: 14/04/2003
Posts: 9546
Loc: Sussex-by-the-Sea
|
|
Quote:
...I do have a 70 - 210 old Nikon as well but it's not the delicious 2.8.
I'll let you know what I buy. A longer lens probably is more sensible. I don't know if I can afford a longer fast lens though.
Would you necessarily want to carry it though? According to the data the 80-200 f2.8 weighs in at 1.3 kg and the 70-200 f2.8 G VR IF-ED tanks along at just short of 1.5kg. Fine if you have a specific event/location in mind but a chore to carry on the off chance...
--------------------
Nigel
Completely BSRIPN
ElSid Gallery
A camera in the hand is more fun than one in the cupboard........
|
Towershot
old hand
Reged: 19/03/2007
Posts: 773
Loc: Lancashire, U,K.
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
...I do have a 70 - 210 old Nikon as well but it's not the delicious 2.8.
I'll let you know what I buy. A longer lens probably is more sensible. I don't know if I can afford a longer fast lens though.
Would you necessarily want to carry it though? According to the data the 80-200 f2.8 weighs in at 1.3 kg and the 70-200 f2.8 G VR IF-ED tanks along at just short of 1.5kg. Fine if you have a specific event/location in mind but a chore to carry on the off chance...
Fine if you are slimming though,or building the old abs up. 
--------------------
Got a good camera, now to get a good photographer.:~<
Rick
My Flickr
|
manteys
newbie
Reged: 03/01/2008
Posts: 23
Loc: Chorley
|
|
I haven't used the used the 18-70 so cant comment on it.
But, I have or do own the 18-200 VR, 105 f2.8 VR Micro and the 17-55 f2.8 so can comment on them.
The 18-200 VR produces good pictures and is relatively lightweight but is subject to distortion, suffers from scope creep and is limited in low light.
The 105 f2.8 micro is, without doubt, the sharpest lens I have owned period (that includes a lot of Canon glass used when on the dark side). I cant fault this lens except for the price and relatively slow focus when in macro range.
I recently acquired the 17-55 f2.8 after a lot of soul searching. My dilema was that I resented paying so much for a DX only lens with mixed reviews. However, having tried everything else (much to the annoyance of several stores) I bit the bullet. It was expensive but I dont regret it because the performance is excellent and I suspect it will seldom leave the camera as its focal range covers 80% of what I shoot (the rest tends to be Macro or Ultrawide).
The 18-200 has already been sold to help fund the purchase!
Good luck in your deliberations!
S
--------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/manteys
|
kliu
newbie
Reged: 02/09/2007
Posts: 2
|
|
I had a chance to try out the 17-55 at length today and was able to scrutinize the photos on my macbook pro. To be honest, I really wasn't blown away by the results. The shop offered me a decent price but I still wasn't ready to drop so much money for this lens. Perhaps the many stellar reviews raised my expectations too high?
There have been a few times I have tried a lens in the store and bought it immediately. The Canon 24-105L lens (when I was also on the dark side!) and most recently the Sigma 10-20. I just didn't get that "I have to have this" feeling with the 17-55. I'm sure those who have it enjoy it very much. For now I will be content with my 18-200 as my walkabout.
|
manteys
newbie
Reged: 03/01/2008
Posts: 23
Loc: Chorley
|
|
I'm sure they've announced an upgrade to the Tamron i.e. with a new motor. It will be a corker if they have!
S
--------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/manteys
|
manteys
newbie
Reged: 03/01/2008
Posts: 23
Loc: Chorley
|
|
Quote:
I had a chance to try out the 17-55 at length today and was able to scrutinize the photos on my macbook pro. To be honest, I really wasn't blown away by the results. The shop offered me a decent price but I still wasn't ready to drop so much money for this lens. Perhaps the many stellar reviews raised my expectations too high?
There have been a few times I have tried a lens in the store and bought it immediately. The Canon 24-105L lens (when I was also on the dark side!) and most recently the Sigma 10-20. I just didn't get that "I have to have this" feeling with the 17-55. I'm sure those who have it enjoy it very much. For now I will be content with my 18-200 as my walkabout.
Agreed, the difference in quality isn't going to leap out at you for all focal length or apertures. Nor is the difference going to be proportional to the extra cost or weight but there is a difference. The biggest difference in my experience as an owner of the lens lies in low light performance, build quality and the consistency of resolution across the focal range. If this is something you need / want / covet, and you have the cash, then it may be for you. I know from experience there is nothing worse then looking at the results of day out with the camera and realising you've just made an expensive mistake.
However, there are lots of quality lenses in this range including the Sigma 18-50 HSM, the Tamron and the Tokina (the latter is almost as expensive as the Nikon). The Tamron is reported to be getting a new motor so it may be worth waiting to see how it fares.
Happy hunting
Sean
PS: The only way to see how any of these things is going to work for you is to try them and see.
--------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/manteys
|
jabbathehutt
newbie
Reged: 13/01/2008
Posts: 8
|
|
Well I still haven't bought one. My computer's been down so I haven't had a chance to search the reviews etc. I'm off to Sharm el Sheikh soon so I thought I'd take just the 18-70mm with me and see what I'm missing the most...
I think that should help me decide. Probably won't be able to afford to buy one when I've been on holiday though.
I did think about going down to my local camera shop with my camera and card and seeing if they'd let me take a few photos with a couple of lenses. Do you think that's cheeky? Mind you, I have spent over £3000 there in the last couple of years. Nearly the price of a D3!!!
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
