tjny Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
mawz wrote:
35vs 50 is a matter of taste, although for most shooters a normal is more flexible than a short tele.
The 17-55 has absolutely horrid flare control, at best is as sharp as a good copy of the 18-70 and even used costs as much as the much better Sigma 17-50 OS does new. I'd compared these two lenses (and a 16-85) when I originally bought my D300 back in early 2008. The 17-55 matched the 16-85 in terms of resolution & sharpness, but showed purely horrid flare control. The 18-70 was better than either optically, but had inferior colour. I ended up choosing the 16-85 for the colour and VR, today I'd pick the 18-70, or the Sigma 17-50 OS which is superior to all the Nikkors in question in terms of optics and is f2.8 and stabilized. I took the same set for a spin briefly on the D7100, and it was even worse, neither the 16-85 nor the 17-55 were up to the D7100's sensor, but the 18-70 surprised me with how good it was on the D7100, having lost essentially no performance (I was expecting it to remain a little better but still be overwhelmed by 24MP no-AA). Nikon needs to realize it's not 2003 anymore and that their early Pro DX lenses are not up to the job and haven't been in years (the 12-24 does even worse comparatively, since it's been outmatched optically ever since the first faster 3rd party UWA's shipped, while the 17-55 did very well against the first generation of f2.8 normals from the 3rd parties, stomping on the Sigma 18-50 and being comparable or a bit better than the Tamron 17-50 and Tokina 16-50, the current 3rd generation lenses from Sigma are significantly better than the competition, and the 18-35 is in a class of its own, rivaling the best full-frame normal zooms). Would I replace it if I owned it? Not for a D300 shooter, it's still a competent lens on the D300 like the OP's. But would I buy one if I needed a normal zoom? nope, not even for a D1x, you can get better performance for the same money (and a warranty) or comparable to slightly superior performance at a major discount.
The 70-200 VR1 is not as much faster optically than the 70-300 due to its very poor T stop. Yeah, it's sharp enough at f2.8 on DX, but it's pretty much T4.0. You are getting only some separation and a half stop or so of actual light transmission over the 70-300VR. Both are pretty comparable options in terms of optics, but the 70-300's the better starter option since it's a third to a quarter the cost and pretty much has a built-in TC, where the 70-200's the more flexible option for someone who knows they need a fast telezoom.
The kit I listed won't give the speed yours will, but it gives comparable or better optics and more flexibility, bar =
+1
...Show more →
|