| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/24/2008 12:00:53 AM · #1 |
I currently have the 18-200mm Nikon lens and it is my go to lens for hiking and outdoor stuff. I find that I mostly use it in the 18mm range for landscapes. It seems reasonably sharp, but not perfect.
Will I really benefit from having the 17-55mm/2.8 instead? According to the blur index on //www.slrgear.com/reviews/showcat.php/cat/13 , it doesn't appear that the 17-55mm is much different than the 18-200mm with regard to sharpness.
So, with that said, somebody please tell me that the 17-55mm is amazingly sharper than the 18-200mm so I can go spend $1,200 on a new lens. 8o} |
|
|
|
01/24/2008 12:06:18 AM · #2 |
|
|
|
01/24/2008 12:17:22 AM · #3 |
Not really certain I'd spend that kinda money on a fast lens to use for landscapes (where you be more inclinde to stop it down for more DOF).
You could compare the images submitted:
Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED *The one you mention
Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 DX ED ~$200
Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 12-24mm f/4.0G IF-ED ~$900
Personally the 12-24 would be my choice for the landscapes. BUT I haven't tried it.
|
|
|
|
01/24/2008 12:53:24 AM · #4 |
You have some (a lot) gorgeous landscapes in your portfolio now. Are you not pleased with the 10-20 Sigma? I would be happy to have one for the very wide shots The old manual focus Sigma 15 fisheye that I use is just awesome for wide shots, and sharp too, even compared with the 16mm 2.8 Manual Focus Nikkor in my kit. Of course it is a prime lens, so I guess I am asking how the 10-20 performs?
|
|
|
|
01/24/2008 08:18:14 AM · #5 |
I have the 18-200 though I haven't shot much with it- winter just isn't the time of year to go out and shoot landscapes here, it's rather brown and drab. I have a friend with the 17-55 and he LOVES it. He also has the 18-200. He prefers the 17-55 which he uses the most.
I need to find a wide angle lens for landscapes. We're moving to Maine in May and I plan on taking a lot of lanscape pictures! |
|
|
|
01/25/2008 10:37:52 AM · #6 |
Wow, thank you all for the replies and valuable insight. It still looks like the performance isn't vastly different (4- vs 4,4+) I still wonder if another $1200 is going to buy me $1200 worth of sharpness. haha.
Thanks again for all the responses. If anyone else has anything to add, that would be awesome. :) |
|
|
|
01/25/2008 10:48:58 AM · #7 |
I have (or sorry, had...) both lenses (dropped the 18-200 and it is gonna cost too much to repair).
I absolutely LOVE my 17-55 lens, but I miss the 18-200. I do use the 17-55 now as my primary lens, no question it's awesome. But, the 18-200 was fantastic if you were going on vacation or just out and about and you really didn't want to bother carrying anything else with you. I'm definitely going to replace the broken 18-200, even if it isn't quite the same quality as the 17-55. |
|
|
|
01/25/2008 11:42:48 AM · #8 |
I think the 17-55 is overall a better lens. You do not get that extra range or the VR but the build quality alone is 5 times better the optics are much better also. Price is not better but for good reason.
If you can afford it, Buy it! you will love it. |
|
|
|
01/25/2008 12:53:15 PM · #9 |
For landscape stuff, you'd be better served by an ultrawide (Sigma 10-20, Tokina 12-24, or Nikon 12-24) and a bitchin' tripod setup than you would by a $1200, unstabilized lens.
Another to consider would be the Tamron 17-50 2.8. I've heard good things, and the price certainly is right.
Message edited by author 2008-01-25 12:54:39. |
|
|
|
01/25/2008 01:42:03 PM · #10 |
| Like many others have already said you want wider than 17mm for landscapes and you don't really need a f2.8. I use the Nikon 12-24 and love it. It is very sharp and the colors you get with it are far superior to the other brands in the ultra wide range. IMHO of course. |
|
|
|
01/26/2008 05:45:27 PM · #11 |
| Thanks for all the advice. I already have the 10-20mm, so I'm set on the extreme wide angle. I think I will sit on this one a little longer. I do like the photos i've seen taken with the 17-55mm/2.8. It's going to be tough to part ways with the 18-200mm. |
|
|
|
01/26/2008 07:13:38 PM · #12 |
| had same dilemma myself,i have the 18-70 dx,considered 17-55 but the consensus on other sites is that its not as good as 18-70 at 18mm and that 18-70 is a very good lens.I was hoping to get the 17-55 or 70-200vr now i'm going to keep 18-70 and get 70-200.Hope this hasn't confused you even more. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 12/29/2025 12:27:02 AM EST.
