I am in the market for a new lens to fit my Nikon D70.
As my main interest area lies in nature and portraits I am considering a zoom in the range of 24-90mm (35mm equivalent). I searched the internet but I cannot find a review of Nikkor 17- 55/2.8G.
How does this lens compare to the kit lens 18-70mm f/3.-4.5 DX? Is the extra US$ 1000 worth the investment? Is the quality (performance wise) equal to the 28-70mm f/2.8?
Thanks for sharing your insights.
IT is what all the remarkable lenses that preceeded it were a Nikkor Pro lens. I have had the 35-70 , the 28-70 and now the 17-55. I can say now that the 17-55 is as good as the 28-70. It took me a long time to finally admit to this fact as the 28-70 might be all things considered one of the greatest zooms ever made and for sure the most sexy one
Is it worth 1000 dollars to Youm that is the only question at issue here, and a very tough one too.
I started with a D100 2 years ago and a crappy zoom, (not nearly as good as the kit lens) , and tho I thought my pictures were great , they after a short time didn't look as good as I knew they could, esp after looking at the unreal work that was being posted at this forum , so I put a Nikkor on the camera a 35-70 in fact and have been a Nikkor addict ever sense
I need the extra stop of speed , no vignetting at Any aperture and edge to edge sharpness, but these are not everyone's needs at every focal length
Do you guys think the 28-70 is as sharp as the 17-55 ?
A friend of mine who is long time Nikon guy sold his 28-70 but he loves the 17-55. Also a few some of the reviews are not as glowing as I would have expected for this level of glass. I am trying to decide on the 28-70 vs. 17-55 so this is of interest.
I have the 70-200vr and love this lens so I want a mid range lens with equal performance.
