Author | Thread |
|
03/03/2007 05:51:05 PM · #1 |
buon giorno:)
there is a photo "messe"=exhibition in oslo right now and they have really great prices on everything. I want that lens, 17-55 mm Nikkor. tell me please, do I really need it? I was told it is a really really cool lens... I have 18-55 mm and 50mm f1.4 already.
grazie!!
Svetlana |
|
|
03/03/2007 06:00:27 PM · #2 |
I don't think anyone would argue with the fact that this is one FANTASTIC lens, with a price to match. need it? maybe not. will you ever part with it once you have it? probably if pried from your cold dead hands. ;)
edit - IMO, with your proclivities being toward portrait work, you might look at the 85mm also. If you're finding that you want to push the ISO on your camera, or make larger sized, high-quality prints, then the D80 or D200 is in order. Review your priorites, and make a choice based on your future needs.
Message edited by author 2007-03-03 18:06:06.
|
|
|
03/03/2007 06:03:41 PM · #3 |
Well, I cant comment on the specific lens, but I have the equivalent Pentax lens to your 18-55, and I will be buying the Pentax equivalent to the 17-55 2.8 (DA* 16-50 2.8) the second its available.
So yeah, if I were shooting Nikon, I'd be all over the 17-55. Go for it!
|
|
|
03/03/2007 06:09:13 PM · #4 |
well this is my favorite lens I have ever used. Everything about it is pretty much perfect. Well if it were the size of a prime it would be perfect. But yeah if you can get a good deal, it's definitely worth it. |
|
|
03/03/2007 06:15:49 PM · #5 |
I don't have one, but I really want one. If you can afford one and have a good deal available, you'll not regret it! |
|
|
03/03/2007 06:16:54 PM · #6 |
I have shot with this lens and it is the one I want so bad I can taste it. I will have it! Heck it is one of only 2 goals I have for the year in my profile. :-P
It is an amazing piece of glass and if one can afford it one should have it! :-D |
|
|
03/03/2007 06:23:07 PM · #7 |
oooooo
d200! this is what I really want. and I am buying some lighting things now too. so either a lens or d200, they cost the same here... but I already have d50, so maybe that lens now and d200 later some time?
why is it so difficult to choose?:)
thank you so much for your answers! |
|
|
03/03/2007 06:30:39 PM · #8 |
Good glass is always a good thing, but with Nikon I always wonder if they will go full frame one day making the DX format a thing of the passed. For a few hundred more you could have this one
|
|
|
03/03/2007 07:20:35 PM · #9 |
ok, I have to wait with buying a new camera anyway:)
thank you! |
|
|
03/03/2007 07:40:58 PM · #10 |
I got it 3 months ago and truly use it for 75% of all my work in all fields. And to think I wondered if I "need" it too.
So the short and long answer is, you will be amazed and satisfied.
|
|
|
03/03/2007 07:53:42 PM · #11 |
i really like mine - though i have had thoughts whether the 28-70 f2.8 would have been a better choice ...
|
|
|
03/03/2007 08:04:21 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by ralph: i really like mine - though i have had thoughts whether the 28-70 f2.8 would have been a better choice ... |
I recently got the tamron 28-75 2.8 for Nikon and really miss the wider end, if you want to trade lenses gimme a PM :). I really like everything else about it except that and its slow to focus when used for lowlight sports events. |
|
|
03/04/2007 07:49:28 AM · #13 |
It's the only lens I use (so far) on my D80. It is wonderful when it is good and deeply annoying when it's bad. I get a far higher failure rate than I am used to (out of focus). But detail is superlative when it's bang on. Exposure throughout the frame is excellent, I haven't experienced any vignetting.
Negative points are: you cannot use the inbuilt camera flash as the lens is so large it leaves a shodow over the lower third of the frame. It has a lot of trouble autofocusing unless the subject is brightly lit, high contrast and head on. Consequently mine is set to manual most of the time. Light sources within the frame will create some pretty nasty flare, certainly the worst of any lens I have owned. It isn't very sharp at small apertures, you will get it's best from f4 to f11 and there is quite a bit of edge distortion at wide angles.
That said, I still wouldn't change it, the price reflects it ruggedness (this is one tough, heavy lens) as much as it's image quality, which is what made this heavy handed idiot buy it. Plastic bodied lenses would have a very short lifetime in my bag. Once you are used to it's foibles it's probably the best zoom lens you could lay your hands on available now, but still no replacement for a decent set of primes.
If you are after the best conenient zoom for your Nikon than grab it. If ultimate quality is your aim, better to invest in primes. |
|
|
03/06/2007 08:36:04 AM · #14 |
I have noticed that a number of serious shooters use this lens (notably, DR Jones uses it as one of his primary workhorses and he is definitely a serious Nikonian), but I also noticed that photozone.de did not seem to feel that this lens was actually the best option out there. I recommend having a bit of a read over there of the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 and the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. In a few weeks, it's likely that the Tokina 16-50 f/2.8 will be released for Canon and Nikon so in a month or so, you should be able to get some serious reviews on that one too. I'm personally choosing to wait. Cash is probably a bit tighter for me though... I'm only making around $300 US a month for the next 3.5 years... You might need the lens sooner rather than later. |
|
|
03/06/2007 10:00:33 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by silverfoxx: buon giorno:)
there is a photo "messe"=exhibition in oslo right now and they have really great prices on everything. I want that lens, 17-55 mm Nikkor. tell me please, do I really need it? I was told it is a really really cool lens... I have 18-55 mm and 50mm f1.4 already.
grazie!!
Svetlana |
No you don't *NEED* it. In fact it might not perform as well as the kit lens you have right now, depending on how you intend to use it. Will you be taking images in low light most of the time? If not, you probably don't need it. Also, how much do you like your 50 f1.4? If you *REALLY* like it, you might *NEED* the 17-55 f2.8 Nikkor. I've used one and it's ok, but it's not a miracle machine. I certainly don't *NEED* one. I *WANT* one!!!!!!!! Looking at your portfolio I think you should *WANT* a 85mm F1.4 or F1.8 Nikkor. heheheheheh Welcome to NAS. Nikon Acquisition Syndrome. You can learn more about this terrible disease here: Nikonians But I must warn you, that site probably does more to spread the disease than educate!
|
|
|
03/06/2007 10:20:17 AM · #16 |
hehe:)
I don't know what I need and what I want anymore.
I bought an umbrella and a soft box kit from bowens yesterday and I've been taking photos all the time since then:) I can't stop, this lighting is fantastic, this is so different from what I had before, this is so cool and looks so great!!!:) I will wait with the lenses.
yes, I LOVE my 50mm esp. with f1.4, really love. and yes, I know I will love 85 mm even more:)
hmm, so this is what it is called:) I don't know why, nikon just feels right to me. |
|
|
03/06/2007 02:10:15 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by fir3bird: Welcome to NAS. Nikon Acquisition Syndrome. You can learn more about this terrible disease here: Nikonians But I must warn you, that site probably does more to spread the disease than educate! |
NAS eh? Us Pentaxians call it LBA: Lens Buying Addiction (you know its bad when it appears on an official Pentax site!) |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/17/2024 02:41:12 PM EDT.