Here's the deal. I shoot a lot of portraits (not that you'd get that from looking at anything I've posted on this site), primarily with my 18-70, which is a pretty good lens. I want the 17-55 because I like ambient light photography when possible, and it also opens up some more options shooting wide(er) open.

The big question is, is it worth $1k extra? I know, I know, "it's worth whatever you are willing to pay," blah blah. I am not looking for those kinds of replies. I just want to know if anyone has it, and if they personally thought the extra cost played out in the photos they made.

Probably this thread will rot because the Nikonians are rather outnumbered here.

Ah well--I'll give it a shot anyways.
M

Canon has similar lenses so we can help too...
But what other lenses do you have? Let's start there....

Here is my bag:

Sigma 10-20
Nikon 50mm 1.8
Nikon 18-70 3.5-4.5
Nikon 70-300 4.5-5.6 VR

I am also thinking about getting an 85mm 1.8 sometime (the 1.4 is way expensive). The 50mm is the only really fast lens I have right now, and while I don't NEED to have really fast lenses necessarily, it would open up some other possibilities, I think.

The tele is a decent one, but I don't use tele nearly as much as the mid and wide end of things.

I'm pretty sure by the end of this thread I'm going to talk myself into the 17-55, though I should wait, at least, till I have my D200 in hand. But the D200 deserves a nice mid-range zoom, right?

the canon 17-55 f2.8 is supposed to be a great lens for the 1.6 cropped bodies. many people have said it is close to L quality. Im sure the Nikon version is similar. I would say go for it.

damn I was just working on a kick ass response and the tokina .pdf catalog crashed my FireFox...

Damn interwebz!

anyway, I was going to suggest the 24~70mm, but Nikon's is ~$1,600 to canon's $1,100... The 17~55 is $1200 for Nikon and $1000 for canon. I never knew Nikon lenses were so expensive...

Anyway, 3 other suggestions:
tamron 17-50mm f/2.8
sigma 18-50mm f/2.8
tokina 16-50mm f/2.8

Thanks for the links...

And yeah in regards to Nikon lenses... the 17-55 is basically an L equivalent. I always thought L glass was really expensive, but some of them are really reasonable.

On the other hand, Nikon's "prosumer" lenses are pretty good, and is mostly what I have. The only thing they really lack is speed, and there aren't too many with constant apertures like Canon has.

M

that's been one of the big arguments I've always heard for Canon... Never looked at Nikon lenses until now... I guess the D3 idea can officially be scratched. I'd lose enough selling all my gear used and buying new anyway, to have their new lenses be more than canon's ruins it for me anyway...

Oh, but the Nikons just feel so right in your hands..............

There's a lot of things I like about Canon, but Nikon just fits me better. There's a lot to love about Canon glass, I just wish they'd really improve the ergonomics of their bodies. But it sounds like they're getting there (have heard great things about the 40D, and it's such a good price!)

M

yeah, I don't mean to make this into a Nikon -vs- Canon war at all. They're both fantastic and both have their pros and cons. The fact the Canon can take "alternative" lenses easier and has the TS-Es will probably keep me with them forever, plus I have a whole kit at this point that swapping entirely would be a PITA.

It's just that the D3 is just about my perfect camera, and if it's high ISO really is that good it does have me thinking. I've fallen in love with FF, so the 1DmIII just doesn't do it for me in that regard. It's a great camera, but not FF... The D3 is everything I need/want in a body. If that was a canon I'd have a preorder in already, or at least be figuring out a way to afford one.

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

yeah, I don't mean to make this into a Nikon -vs- Canon war at all. They're both fantastic and both have their pros and cons. The fact the Canon can take "alternative" lenses easier and has the TS-Es will probably keep me with them forever, plus I have a whole kit at this point that swapping entirely would be a PITA.

It's just that the D3 is just about my perfect camera, and if it's high ISO really is that good it does have me thinking. I've fallen in love with FF, so the 1DmIII just doesn't do it for me in that regard. It's a great camera, but not FF... The D3 is everything I need/want in a body. If that was a canon I'd have a preorder in already, or at least be figuring out a way to afford one.

Patience... 5D mII

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

yeah, I don't mean to make this into a Nikon -vs- Canon war at all. They're both fantastic and both have their pros and cons. The fact the Canon can take "alternative" lenses easier and has the TS-Es will probably keep me with them forever, plus I have a whole kit at this point that swapping entirely would be a PITA.

It's just that the D3 is just about my perfect camera, and if it's high ISO really is that good it does have me thinking. I've fallen in love with FF, so the 1DmIII just doesn't do it for me in that regard. It's a great camera, but not FF... The D3 is everything I need/want in a body. If that was a canon I'd have a preorder in already, or at least be figuring out a way to afford one.

You and I are on opposite sides of the same coin... The 5D is, to me, the perfect camera for what I like to do, but I am so in love with Nikon ergonomics and lenses that I can't imagine switching. Plus, my dad is a really good resource for old MF lenses. Nikons don't currently have great high ISO performance, but I hardly ever shoot >400, so it's kind of a non-issue. I am not so invested in gear financially that I couldn't switch, but I am pretty much totally invested emotionally and learning-wise. I think I would miss a lot of stuff trying to learn a different camera....

But I agree--there are no losers in the Canon/Nikon world.

I LOVE the D3, but I don't have $5k to drop on it right now.
M

Originally Posted by subimatt

Patience... 5D mII

no way will it have ~8+ fps. I don't need ten, but 8fps is the magic number in terms of being a good sports camera IMHO... Although for me, since almost all of my sports stuff is either online, or printed at 8x12 or less, the 1D has been doing fine for that aspect... Plus it's an extra body which is nice. My biggest issue with it honestly is the craptacular batteries (I have 2 black diamonds I use, but even they suck compared to the newer sensor/battery combos). Also the rear LCD is horrible, but I really only use that for checking histograms anyway...

Originally Posted by Markitos

The 5D is, to me, the perfect camera for what I like to do.

It's perfect for 95% of what I do to, and it's a better fit for me than any of the 1 series bodies (except maybe the 1DsmII and III ). It's just that if it also went 9fps it would be the perfect camera. As for the high ISO ability, I don't shoot above 400 for most of what I do. Again, that same 95% that is landscapes, scenics, product shots, and anything else. I have noticed that sometimes at night when I'm bored it would be nice to crank the ISO to those insane numbers they're talking about just to see what would actually happens... I mean 6400 opens up a lot of possibilities with a 50mm f1.4...

For portrait stuff, I think I'd prefer the 28-70 over the 17-55. Everyone has their own preference, obviously. I have the 18-55, and I find myself hitting the long end a LOT.

Not sure what the price tag is on the new 24-70, but it looks pretty nice.

Also, another thing to consider about the 17-55, is that it's a DX lens, which could matter if you ever want to get into a FF body later.

Originally Posted by LateApex

For portrait stuff, I think I'd prefer the 28-70 over the 17-55. Everyone has their own preference, obviously. I have the 18-55, and I find myself hitting the long end a LOT.

Not sure what the price tag is on the new 24-70, but it looks pretty nice.

Also, another thing to consider about the 17-55, is that it's a DX lens, which could matter if you ever want to get into a FF body later.

Ehhh... I will be with crop bodies for the forseeable future--I'm about to move to a D200, and the D300 is a crop body, and the D400 will likely be a crop body.... so the DX lenses aren't an issue, unless someone starts paying me $$$ to go buy FX sensor cameras.

You're probably right about the 28-70... 70mm on a crop body is a really nice focal length for portraits... I'm just afraid I'd miss the wide end, but I guess that's what the 10-20 is for.

Thanks!
M

Originally Posted by Markitos

Originally Posted by LateApex

For portrait stuff, I think I'd prefer the 28-70 over the 17-55. Everyone has their own preference, obviously. I have the 18-55, and I find myself hitting the long end a LOT.

Not sure what the price tag is on the new 24-70, but it looks pretty nice.

Also, another thing to consider about the 17-55, is that it's a DX lens, which could matter if you ever want to get into a FF body later.

Ehhh... I will be with crop bodies for the forseeable future--I'm about to move to a D200, and the D300 is a crop body, and the D400 will likely be a crop body.... so the DX lenses aren't an issue, unless someone starts paying me $$$ to go buy FX sensor cameras.

You're probably right about the 28-70... 70mm on a crop body is a really nice focal length for portraits... I'm just afraid I'd miss the wide end, but I guess that's what the 10-20 is for.

Thanks!
M

I just picked up the 24-70L for my 30D, Im going to be using for portraits. I rarely need anything wider, Ill let you know more from this weekends shoots, but so far it is perfect.

So, after much bellyaching, consulting with fellow photogs, and wincing, I ordered the 17-55... seems to me the best mid-range fast zoom for a 1.5 crop body.

Brother-in-law's wedding, here we come!

M

(even though this isn't L glass, I sort of feel like part of the club now, since it's equivalent)

congrats enjoy your new stuff.

I'll get there one of these days

Bling Bling! Thanks UPS man!

Old 18-70 workhorse on the left, New Hottness on the right:


The 17-55 has a huge hood, too, but it's not in the picture, obviously.

First impressions are good, though I haven't had too much opportunity to shoot stuff yet. The constant 2.8 aperture is awesome!

M

that's AFS right? I think I rented that one for the last wedding I shot.... it was a nice lens and focused extremely quickly and quietly.

Originally Posted by Markitos

So, after much bellyaching, consulting with fellow photogs, and wincing, I ordered the 17-55... seems to me the best mid-range fast zoom for a 1.5 crop body.

Brother-in-law's wedding, here we come!

M

(even though this isn't L glass, I sort of feel like part of the club now, since it's equivalent)

Congrats on the Lens! Im sure youll be happy with it! now test shots, Go!

Originally Posted by jblaze5779

that's AFS right? I think I rented that one for the last wedding I shot.... it was a nice lens and focused extremely quickly and quietly.

Yeah, it's AF-S and a nice lens and HUGE. I think they designed it to beat away wedding guests when trying to get photos, or maybe to defend yourself when doing street photography at night. It's pretty heavy duty. It's a little heavy on the D70, but balances well, and should be just right for the D200 when I get it in Nov.

Test shots are coming!

M

How much did you end up paying for it if you don't mind?

I can't decide whether or not I want to get a better body or invest in some glass for my next major purchase. I'm thinking a D200 sounds nice because a D300 is sort of a pipe dream for me right now.

Originally Posted by jblaze5779

How much did you end up paying for it if you don't mind?

I can't decide whether or not I want to get a better body or invest in some glass for my next major purchase. I'm thinking a D200 sounds nice because a D300 is sort of a pipe dream for me right now.

I bought a slightly used model from Adorama for $1159, which seems about average from where I've shopped around (local, KEH, B&H, etc.). The lens I got is flawless. It is a lot of money to pay, but as soon as I started using it, I felt like it was worth it, and this will be my primary lens. I feel you get a lot more for your money with lenses than with bodies, esp. because they won't become obsolete every ~2 years. Or at least, they are less likely to....

As far as glass vs. body goes, I am only getting the D200 because the opportunity has come up for a good price (my dad is getting a D300). Having recently invested significant money in lenses, I would say the lenses make a MUCH bigger difference than the body. That said, sometimes you need to upgrade the body, but I feel like the D70 is still serving me well. I can't speak for the D50, but it's pretty similar.

If you do go with a body, I would say just get the best thing that fits your budget--a D300 would be nice, but a D200 is 9/10ths and should be (and is) significantly cheaper.

M

I'd agree glass > bodies.

Just a test image of my mom... Handheld at F2.8, 1/20", 55mm, 200 ISO

You can see the lovely bokeh. When I have time, I will try to do a side by side shootout with the 17-55 and the 18-70.

Here is a picture of it on the D70, so you can see how big it really is (only a little shorter than my 70-300 tele)!

Ignore the date stamp over the name stamp--I have not used my P&S in a LONG time!

And, even though I love this lens so far, and think it was a good addition to my kit, the 18-70 is no slouch. I am hoping that the shootout images will show that. Ultimately, the 18-70 was just too slow, and for current Nikon bodies that are kind of noisy at high ISO, that was a problem.

M

Agreed on the Lens> Bodies.

Thats the same way I felt when I got my first L, and the results more than speak for themselves. Pics of the lens with the hood! I know the 24-70 adds a good 30% of size with the hood on.

Originally Posted by subimatt

Agreed on the Lens> Bodies.

Thats the same way I felt when I got my first L, and the results more than speak for themselves. Pics of the lens with the hood! I know the 24-70 adds a good 30% of size with the hood on.

As requested:


M

^ yup, about the same. Wait til you get all the comments on your large piece... of glass :P

Originally Posted by Markitos

You can see the lovely bokeh.

Yes, lovely.

Originally Posted by Markitos

Ignore the date stamp over the name stamp--I have not used my P&S in a LONG time!

Not since.... well.... today even... :P

Originally Posted by jacobsen1

Originally Posted by Markitos

Ignore the date stamp over the name stamp--I have not used my P&S in a LONG time!

Not since.... well.... today even... :P

Yeah, yeah... I mean BEFORE today....

M

any more thoughts? this lens is getting more and more of my attention every day

No, it's either been raining or I have been busy at work this week, so haven't had enough time to play. Just remember what I said: it seemed like a lot of money to pay until I put it on my camera and started to use it. Then it all made sense (though I still think it's a lot of money to pay--but what can you do?).

See the Homework thread for Fall if you want to see a few more sample images. I will be shooting my brother-in-law's wedding next weekend, so I should have LOTS of examples, impressions, and thoughts by mid-November, at which point I will definitely share them.

M

OK dude I just sent money for a copy.... I'm pretty damn excited

Originally Posted by jblaze5779

OK dude I just sent money for a copy.... I'm pretty damn excited

Awesome! What pushed you over the edge??

You'll be like: :monkey:

M

Seeing your images and the need for a capable wedding lens is really what did it for me. I had some money left over from the last wedding and it was my birthday/christmas present.

I got it from a guy who was advertising on TPF and Nikonians.

Should I be flattered?? Or maybe Nikon?

One of the things I love most about the lens is that for me it opens up a lot more possibilities for using ambient light--I like to avoid flash when possible. That said, when I do have to use flash, it gives me more control over DOF, and helps preserve the flash and get more ambient light because you can still shoot wide open so the flash doesn't have to fire as hard.

The other things I love about it are the intangibles--it just feels great in your hands and balances really well on both the D200 and D70 (though moreso on the D200).

I don't miss the range from 55-70 as much as I thought I would--though it would have been nice for a few shots.

M

It should be getting here any minute now... the guy sent it Saturday morning delivery. The I'm off to second shoot my second wedding.

I'm looking forward to getting consistent exposure throughout the zoom range. On my other lens I can barely make f/3.5 work at 24mm but if I zoom in I'm automatically screwed because I'll be at 4.5 or 5.6 or something. I'm thinking I'll need this lens, the 80-200 AFS, and an UWA to complete my setup. I'll probably sell my other lenses but keep my primes.

Your posts did influence me to get this lens, I used the non AF-S 35-70 version at my second wedding an I liked it a lot. I just needed to be tipped of the edge.

Now the only problem is getting clearance from the wife to spend more money

Another question... since this is the DX version the focal length designations are truly what they are right? There's no cropping factor? 15mm=15mm not 22.5mm correct?

No, there is still the 1.5x crop factor, which is why it's a midrange zoom... i.e., the 17-55 actually replicates the older 28-80 range (though this lens is actually goes a little bit wider (25.5mm), and longer (82.5) than that range.

The focal length remains the same and is always stated the same--the manufacturers don't translate for you. It is only the sensor size that dictates the apparent focal length, and therefore the crop factor.

Does that help?
M

OK cool, I didn't know since it was a DX lens if they just adjusted for that cropping factor with how they designed the lens. If that's even possible

So Jblaze, I haven't heard how you like the new lens... is it all you'd hoped it would be?

M

Yeah it is... I'm really enjoying it. I'm wrapping up school for the past couple weeks so I haven't had much time to shoot anything. I did a wedding with it but the wedding was extra crappy so I've been contemplating not even putting the series on my webpage. I did take the time to edit the photos and everything but with the way the event was set up it doesn't lead to really appealing pictures.

I have started a shootout with the 18-70 and the 17-55... lots of photos to go through and get 100% crops from, though, and not a lot of motivation today... it will come, but slowly.

M

Originally Posted by Rallyroo

I did contemplate getting the 17-55/2.8 DX at one time, but decided to just stick it out with my 17-35/2.8. I do have the 18-70/3.5-4.5 as my walk around/taking random shots lens when I don't want to lug the heavy guns though.

I feel somewhat limited by only having range out to 55mm (rather than 70)... I would DIE with the 17-35--I'd be changing lenses all the time.

But if I were like you and already had the 17-35, I think I'd do exactly what you're doing--stick it out and use the 18-70 when there's more light available/taking random shots.

M

All my shots are recreational snapshots but I am pretty happy with the 17-35, I rarely switch over to the 50 (which I love) just use my feet. I am pretty much down to a 2 lens set, my 17-35 and 80-200 (which I am hoping to replace with the 70-200 next month).

Originally Posted by Rallyroo

Originally Posted by kensington

All my shots are recreational snapshots but I am pretty happy with the 17-35, I rarely switch over to the 50 (which I love) just use my feet. I am pretty much down to a 2 lens set, my 17-35 and 80-200 (which I am hoping to replace with the 70-200 next month).

That's the lens set combo that I generally shoot with too.
17-35/2.8 and 70-200/2.8

I'm so jealous!!! I want the 70-200/2.8, though I don't really need it. Just a case of NAS.

M