17-55 or 17-50 and 85 1.4

Moderated by: guardian

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules
Nikon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums | Nikon-mount SLRs | Join Image Upload
1

end

oobie
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #1 · 17-55 or 17-50 and 85 1.4

Regarding focus speed...

Some have said earlier that the difference is not such a big deal.

Try shooting a wedding and then tell me that it's not a big deal.

I attempted to shoot a wedding with the tamron 17-50 and had a huge number of soft images because it took so dang long to focus. It was totally unacceptable. My keeper percentage went up over 50% after switching to the Nikon version.

Sep 07, 2008 at 02:36 AM

phillip ino
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #2 · 17-55 or 17-50 and 85 1.4

85/1.4 wide open

Sep 07, 2008 at 02:38 AM

jamach
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #3 · 17-55 or 17-50 and 85 1.4

85 F1.4 rules

Joe

Edited on Sep 07, 2008 at 02:45 AM

Sep 07, 2008 at 02:44 AM

Avi B
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #4 · 17-55 or 17-50 and 85 1.4

phillip you're so mean man! i can't believe it! i had refrained from posting any creamy 85 1.4 shots... and there you go, doing it... sheesh.

Can you say NAS?

Sep 07, 2008 at 04:15 AM

BenFPhotog
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #5 · 17-55 or 17-50 and 85 1.4

Ha! Sounds excellent. And Jam, I've heard about that rotating ring; it's put me off to be frank.

I was debating about whether to sell the 17-55 and picking up an old 35-70 f/2.8 and then a Sigma 10-20 to cover the wide end (I hardly ever use 17-25). How does that sound?

Sep 07, 2008 at 12:01 PM

phillip ino
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #6 · 17-55 or 17-50 and 85 1.4

Ok ok....I am sorry. I shouldn't do that to you, Ben. My apologies.

If you're not using the range that the 17-55 offers, then there is no point in keeping it. I had the 10-20 and loved it to death. The beauty about lenses is that you can resell them and lose very little, as long as you take care of your equipment. Because of this, I have had the chance to try out so many lenses. People can post their opinions all day long, but there's nothing like trying the lenses out for yourself.

Sep 07, 2008 at 02:26 PM

BenFPhotog
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #7 · 17-55 or 17-50 and 85 1.4

Yeah I've actually done a lot of that. I've gone through 4 bodies and about 15 lenses in about 2 years; just because I wanted to try every route and find the perfect kit for me. I've settled on the D300 for my perfect body, but I know I will want a D700 if and when I turn pro.

Meanwhile, I'm still thinking a 35-70 f/2.8 (or even maybe a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8) and Sigma 10-20 would be the best option.

Sep 07, 2008 at 02:33 PM

phillip ino
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #8 · 17-55 or 17-50 and 85 1.4

I hear the 35-70 is real nice...but I also hear the contrast and color is a bit lacking, but that can be easily fixed in PP work. I recently acquired a Tokina 28-70 2.6-2.8 and that sucker is sharp as a razor and produces similar color tones to Nikkor lenses. May be worth considering.

Sep 07, 2008 at 02:38 PM

BenFPhotog
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #9 · 17-55 or 17-50 and 85 1.4

Yeah, same. I would miss the extra mm's on either end, too. Do you mean 28-75 f/2.8? Or is there a 28-70, but the 2.6 must be a typo?

EDIT: I apologise, I just did a bit of research and holy crap. That thing looks badass. Know of anywhere in the UK where I can get one?

Edited on Sep 07, 2008 at 02:44 PM

Sep 07, 2008 at 02:42 PM

jamach
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #10 · 17-55 or 17-50 and 85 1.4

My 35-70 F2.8 does great colors and exacting details, truly a super lens, but does not extend to 500mm. DRATS! Here are some with the lens at an Iris Show and Sale

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Joe

Edited on Sep 07, 2008 at 02:47 PM

Sep 07, 2008 at 02:46 PM

mawz
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #11 · 17-55 or 17-50 and 85 1.4

The 28-70 f2.6-2.8 is based off a Angenieux design and is probably the best fast mid-range zoom of its era. But the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 is smaller, lighter and sharper wide open. The Tokina rivals the Nikkor 28-70 f2.8 in size.

Frankly, unless you get a good deal on it, I'd skip it. The extra 1/6 of a stop is unnoticable and there are better options on the market today (The Nikon's and the Tamron).

I've owned both the Tokina 28-70 f2.6-2.8 and the Tamron 28-75 (the latter in K mount). I miss the Tamron, but not the Tokina (which was quite good but not stellar like the Tamron).

Sep 07, 2008 at 02:51 PM

phillip ino
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #12 · 17-55 or 17-50 and 85 1.4

No typo, that's really what it is! And it's supposed to be designed after the famous Angenioux design and can be had used for less than $300. Great lens for the budget-conscious

Edited on Sep 07, 2008 at 02:54 PM

Sep 07, 2008 at 02:52 PM

BenFPhotog
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #13 · 17-55 or 17-50 and 85 1.4

Oh I see; maybe it's not such as great deal. What's it's performance like at f/2.8? (The Tokina).

Sep 07, 2008 at 02:54 PM

phillip ino
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #14 · 17-55 or 17-50 and 85 1.4

mawz wrote:
The 28-70 f2.6-2.8 is based off a Angenieux design and is probably the best fast mid-range zoom of its era. But the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 is smaller, lighter and sharper wide open. The Tokina rivals the Nikkor 28-70 f2.8 in size.

Frankly, unless you get a good deal on it, I'd skip it. The extra 1/6 of a stop is unnoticable and there are better options on the market today (The Nikon's and the Tamron).

I've owned both the Tokina 28-70 f2.6-2.8 and the Tamron 28-75 (the latter in K mount). I miss the Tamron, but not the Tokina (which was quite good but not stellar like the Tamron).

I have also heard that the Tamron is a real good performer. And basically ANYTHING is lighter than the Nikkor 28-70

. Are we making this any easier on you, Ben?

Sep 07, 2008 at 02:56 PM

BenFPhotog
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #15 · 17-55 or 17-50 and 85 1.4

Very much, thank you. I'm pretty sure I'm gonna sell the 17-55, I just don't know a reasonable price. It's completely mint, with box etc. They go for anywhere between £750-£1000 new in the UK, but I really wanted about £700 for it; or is that asking too much?

EDIT: Aha! Just realised the Sigma 10-20 takes 77 filters, so I won't need any adapters to fit my Kood system to the 10-20. Even better.

Edited on Sep 07, 2008 at 03:09 PM

Sep 07, 2008 at 03:08 PM

martyn.
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #16 · 17-55 or 17-50 and 85 1.4

Ben have a look on some of the used equipment websites and see what they are making, seen as low as £585 and as high as £700, depends on condition and how quick you want to sell it.

Couple of links for you

Mifsuds

mpb

Sep 07, 2008 at 03:50 PM

BenFPhotog
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #17 · 17-55 or 17-50 and 85 1.4

Thanks mate, I'm guessing it's more likely I'm only going to get about £500 for it then. Unless I try to eBay route?

Sep 07, 2008 at 04:15 PM

Rodolfo Paiz
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #18 · 17-55 or 17-50 and 85 1.4

I they're going for anywhere between 585 and 700 according to martyn, and yours is in "mint" condition as I'd expect, what would lead you to believe that you're only going to get 500 for it? He was talking used, not new... 700 for a mint 17-55 sounds perhaps a trifle high, but you might be able to pull it off. Just gotta find someone who cares an extra 30-50 pounds about perfect condition.

Sep 07, 2008 at 08:26 PM


FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Image Upload 1 2 end