| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/10/2006 04:41:28 PM · #1 |
A low light shooting situation last week has impressed upon me the desire for fast glass. So the clear cut winner for my "walk about" lens is the 17-55 f2.8
But then what?
There seems to be a clear hole in the 55-70mm range in Nikon's lens line-up.
The obvious choice is a combo of the 17-35 and 28-70, but it seems like that would lead to a lot of back-and-forth lens switching in the "sweet spot" of 30-55mm.
What do most people with the 17-55 use for their second lens?
|
|
|
|
08/10/2006 04:54:07 PM · #2 |
Perhaps you would like a 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5? Check out this new release from Sigma.
Some have found that by sacrificing the zoom range for low light performance is much better, and having used a Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 and the cheaper (but extremely sharp for the price) Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 I tend to agree. Don't be afraid to buy a Sigma, many of their lenses are equal if not better in quality to Nikkor/Nikon lenses, and satisfy ranges and areas Nikon doesn't.
**EDIT**: This Sigma 70mm f/2.8 Macro would be great for indoor portraiture/shooting when light is low, as would my favorite walk-around, portraiture macro lens The Nikkor 60mm f/2.8D. Our very own Manny Librodo shows exactly what the 60mm macro (micro, according to Nikon) is capable of.
Message edited by author 2006-08-10 16:57:39. |
|
|
|
08/10/2006 06:46:37 PM · #3 |
Thanks for the suggestions. I already have a Tamron 90mm Macro, along with a 12-24 and the crappy Nikon 70-300. The 50mm Nikkor is hot on my list along with the 60 Macro. All those (along with a better long lens, maybe the 70-200 (if I can afford it too) are going in the big bag. But I'm looking for something to throw in a backpack when I am trying to travel "light". So I guess the question is... what's the other half of the 17-55?
|
|
|
|
08/10/2006 06:57:29 PM · #4 |
as far as filling a gap between 55 and 70, it's worthless. That's the difference in stepping up or back a few steps.
The major things are that you have extreme wide covered (17mm for you) and that you have some telephoto covered (200mm or so...anything above that with a fast max aperture is going to be really expensive). If there's a gap in the middle, you'll never notice it.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2006 08:21:54 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by livitup:
So I guess the question is... what's the other half of the 17-55? |
70-200mm f/2.8 VR DG IF-ED
mmmmmmmmmmgoooooood.
If want to wait around you can get the 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX VR II as your all in one lens.
Message edited by author 2006-08-10 20:22:09.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2006 09:25:44 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by deapee:
as far as filling a gap between 55 and 70, it's worthless. That's the difference in stepping up or back a few steps.
The major things are that you have extreme wide covered (17mm for you) and that you have some telephoto covered (200mm or so...anything above that with a fast max aperture is going to be really expensive). If there's a gap in the middle, you'll never notice it. |
Really? It's that much of a non-issue? That would make room in the backpack for the 70-200 and walk around with the 17-55. I guess in 35mm land that's like a 28-80, which was my only lens on my 8008 for years on end. Hmm.... okiedokie, looks like I just saved $1000 and can go for that 70-200 now. :)
|
|
|
|
08/10/2006 09:52:16 PM · #7 |
I'll second that its worthless (55-70 gap). The 70-200/17-55 is a great combo.
Originally posted by livitup:
Originally posted by deapee:
as far as filling a gap between 55 and 70, it's worthless. That's the difference in stepping up or back a few steps.
The major things are that you have extreme wide covered (17mm for you) and that you have some telephoto covered (200mm or so...anything above that with a fast max aperture is going to be really expensive). If there's a gap in the middle, you'll never notice it. |
Really? It's that much of a non-issue? That would make room in the backpack for the 70-200 and walk around with the 17-55. I guess in 35mm land that's like a 28-80, which was my only lens on my 8008 for years on end. Hmm.... okiedokie, looks like I just saved $1000 and can go for that 70-200 now. :) |
|
|
|
|
08/10/2006 10:45:32 PM · #8 |
| I agree with the others that you don't need to fill every gap in the range. However, have you may want to consider the Nikkor 35-70 f/2.8D - a really great quality lens at a bargain price. The optics is as good as on the 28-70/2.8 (they say, I don't have the 28-70 myself), but the lens is lighter and costs 1/3 of the price of the 28-70. It's built very solidly, too - all metal construction. The only two quirks are (1) push-pull zoom (not a big deal), and (2) the front element rotates when focusing, so using a CPL with it is a bit of a hassle. A used 35-70/2.8 can be had for about $300, a grey market brand new copy from B&H sells for around $500. |
|
|
|
08/14/2006 11:10:12 PM · #9 |
Sigma 50-150 f/2.8
Tokina has one coming out soon too.
I'm not personally too worried about the 55-80mm range either myself. I'll be keeping my 80-200 lens (canon).
But I will probably be using a Tokina 16-50 f/2.8 OR Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 plus the 80-200 in Canon.
The Nikon 17-55 is really cool. Not sure how it compares price-wise though...
I noticed that DrJones seems to use it a lot. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/02/2026 05:36:18 PM EST.
