Thinking about getting a 17-55 however also thinking of getting three primes instead. How would the zoom compare to the following....

20mm 2.8
35mm 2.0 (or 30mm 1.4)
50mm 1.4

I know I am losing the 3mm on the wide end. I would really like the ability to zoom but want the best IQ possible. The primes would also be a little less expensive and work on a full frame body in the future, but the zoom would work on a D40 type body if I ran across one of those,,,,,,,, So back to my original question, will the 17-55 stack up IQ wise with the primes?

I have all the above lenses minus the 20mm. Image quality is about the same in all. The advantage of having the 17-55 is that you get all in one and you don't have to worry about getting dust on your sensor everytime you change lenses. The disadvantage is that the 17-55 is large and heavy compared to any of the AF primes you mentioned. I use the 17-55 as my main lens for wedding work, but I keep the primes in another bag as back ups. The primes are also the lenses I use for non work related fun shooting.

I recently got rid of all my Canon gear and now have been asked to shoot a friends wedding, so I picked up a D1X and a 85 1.8 and will be adding the 17-55 or the primes to that kit. My main concern at this point is doing a good job for my friend, I am thinking I will have more time to be creative with the zoom, instead of swapping lenses and worrying about gear. As an actual wedding photog his seems to be your mantality too so maybe I am on the right path.

Yes, I use mainly use two lenses at a wedding; the 17-55 and a 80-200mm 2.8. I would say that 98% of my shots are taken with the 17-55. I have a couple of bags with back up bodies and prime lenses in the same focal lengths just in case I my two primary lenses fail.

Sometime last year I had to send in my Nikon 80-200mm 2.8 to Nikon for repair. I substituted it with an 85mm 1.8 and a 180mm 2.8 for a few weddings I shot while the the 80-200 was out for repair. I used the fast longer primes to get a cropped "couple shot" from the rear and sides of the church during the ceremony. I found them to be just as usefull as the 80-200, probably lighter to carry.

My only two gripes with the 17-55 are that when shooting with an SB800 at the 17mm focal length I have to remember to pull out the little plastic wide angle tab on the flash, if not my flash starts acting crazy. Also, I don't care too much for the over sized petal shaped lens shade. Too easy to take off and produces a shadow effect sometimes at the bottom of the screen when shooting at 17mm.

One more thing. The build quality on the 17-55 is amazing. It feels solid and you don't have to worry much when guests bump into you on the dance floor. Chances are they might end up with a bruise after poking into my 17-55. Also, I keep a UV filter (best B+W I could get) on my 17-55 because it is easy to wipe of little splashes of water, cake frosting, etc., from the front element without having to worry about causing damage to the actual front glass element.

bmannon wrote:
Thinking about getting a 17-55 however also thinking of getting three primes instead. How would the zoom compare to the following....

20mm 2.8
35mm 2.0 (or 30mm 1.4)
50mm 1.4

I know I am losing the 3mm on the wide end. I would really like the ability to zoom but want the best IQ possible. The primes would also be a little less expensive and work on a full frame body in the future, but the zoom would work on a D40 type body if I ran across one of those,,,,,,,, So back to my original question, will the 17-55 stack up IQ wise with the primes?


I think you will be surprised by the performance of the 17-55, even wide open. My copy is sharp corner to corner even at F/2.8.

I recently did a wedding with this lens and found it to be a charm. The only other lens I carried was my 70-200VR for the long shots and tight-crop portraits.

The only issues I have with this lens are: its a bit prone to flare in harsh lighting situations (i.e. indoor shots with a bright window behind) but underexposing slightly solved that issue. Sometimes its a bit hard to get the hood to line-up properly to mount it.

The lens is built like a tank and although it is big and heavy, it is very well ballanced on a D300 with a grip. Ergonomics of this lens are fantastic as is the AF performance.

As you correctly pointed out, this is a DX lens, so if you plan to go to FX sometime soon, either the primes or a 24-70 might serve you better. If you are not going to FX or the conversion to FX is a ways off, go for the 17-55.

Best of luck to you.

I have most of the lenses listed. I almost always use the 17-55. It is really sharp and quick to focus. I do caution that you try one, as it is really large and heavy. If it was going to be on a small body D40, I would think twice. I have it on a D300 and it is finely balanced, especially with the battery grip.

I guess I would sum up the decision to being:

Wider aperatures with lens changing often.. vs.
All in one lens with larger size and weight...... Which is more important to your style of shooting?

so the concensus is no real difference in IQ.


WiPhotoguy wrote:I guess I would sum up the decision to being:

Wider aperatures with lens changing often.. vs.
All in one lens with larger size and weight...... Which is more important to your style of shooting?

Here is a question to stir up the Nikkor lovers,,, how does the new 18-50 Sigma Macro compare to the 17-55?

The tamron is said to be best of the 3rd party lenses, and closest to the 17-55 in IQ. Too bad my original Tamron copy was front focussing which is why I just went with the 17-55. BTW, the colours and bokeh are quite lovely out of this lens.

Here is a shot taken with D70s @ISO 800, @f2.8 with the 17-55:

the tamron is a stud for the money.... never used the 17-55 but i know its awful heavy.

in direct response to your q, if your most concerned with getting good images at the wedding, definately go with the zooms. nobody but you and a few other pro's MIGHT notice any lack of extreme edge sharpness.

I have all of the primes plus the 85mm F1.8 and I use them all at weddings.
Your style should dictate your needs.
I don't need a zoom but the 24-85mm F2.8-3.5 also works at weddings.
I had one.

Well I just bought mfletch'es 17-55. So I will have the 17-55 and the 85mm 1.8. I think this will be a good combo, now what about flash.......................

sb800.

Avi B wrote:
sb800.



Get two of them! And don't forget to flip down the clear plastic wide angle attatchment when using your 17-55 at focal lengths of 24mm and under!

is this a good option on a D1X?

The D1X uses DTTL which both the SB600 and SB800 are compatible. If in future you upgrade to D2 or D3 you would be able to make use of the iTTL features. You could save some money and go with a SB28DX but it aside from the dTTL it doesn't have many of the useful features of the SB800, slave mode for example. You would however need a master to trigger the slave mode SB800 anyway, why two would be good.

Rene

you'll find the sb600/800 to fire a little hot on D1X. IME a -2/3 to -1 FEV worked well. Oh and that darn rear lcd is worthless for judging hot spots. test flash output for yourself well before the event and post up some pics when you suceed

Justin Huffman wrote:
... and post up some pics when you suceed

ummm,,,, you mean IF?

snegron wrote:
Avi B wrote:
sb800.



Get two of them! And don't forget to flip down the clear plastic wide angle attatchment when using your 17-55 at focal lengths of 24mm and under!

You totally don't have to do that, 17mm on a DX body is the same as 25mm on FX, which the SB-800 covers with no problem.

I started going down this path about a year ago. Got the 20mm and the 50mm and had the 35mm and instead returned it and bought the 17-55mm.

I never, ever use the primes. Just doesn't seem worth the lens switching and lack of precise framing. Then I'd need the 24mm and then the 28mm.

I am thinking of the 16-85mm for my second (D80) body and selling the 18-200mm as I've got the 10-20mm and the 70-300mm. Hmm.