300 more? The 16-85 is selling for 600 while most places are selling the 17-55 for 1200? That is a difference of 600 dollars.
I had the Canon 17-55 IS, which I think is better than the Nikon equivalent, and I think the 16-85 is equally as sharp. I do find that the lens a little slow so that maybe a drawback if you need the speed. I opted for the 16-85 because I didnt feel like spending 1200 dollars on a DX lens.
It all depends on how you shoot. I like the 24-70 f/2.8 enough on my D300 to be willing to switch to the 17-35 f/2.8 or 12-24 f/4 when I need wider. Otherwise my suggestion would be the following:
12-24 f/4
17-55 f/2.8
70-200 f/2.8
If you needed a faster wide lens, there is the awesome 14-24 f/2.8 in place of the 12-24, but it sucks at 12mm if that is what you need, and it doesn't accept filters. I know you weren't interested in longer telephoto lenses, but the 70-200 is generally a part of just about everybody's kit that goes for pro glass. The suggestion of the 105 f/2 DC lens is another good choice, or possibly the 105 f/2.8 macro lens, if macro is something you might get into.
Thanks for the input, David. I didn't mean to say that I have no interest in teles, only that I wanted to emphasize wide to mid-range where I live most of the time.
tuan151 wrote:
300 more? The 16-85 is selling for 600 while most places are selling the 17-55 for 1200? That is a difference of 600 dollars.
I had the Canon 17-55 IS, which I think is better than the Nikon equivalent, and I think the 16-85 is equally as sharp. I do find that the lens a little slow so that maybe a drawback if you need the speed. I opted for the 16-85 because I didnt feel like spending 1200 dollars on a DX lens.
Okay, you didn't read my response. I clearly stated that I was talking about the price of a used 17-55 (around 950) which is around 300 more (here and on nikonians) than a new 16-85 at B&H.
Personally I used to own the 18-70, which is very close to my 17-55 at f/8 to f/11, but at f/2.8 (which the 18-70 doesn't do) to f/5.6, I found the 17-55 better. Plus I kind of like the heft
Tom, it would be ideal if you could go to a nearby dealer, shoot some test images with both lenses to determine which one would best suit you. Then you can choose.
Avi B wrote:
Tom, it would be ideal if you could go to a nearby dealer, shoot some test images with both lenses to determine which one would best suit you. Then you can choose.
Always wise words, Avi. Reading comments from others helps me get a feel for the options.
I'm looking to purchase a new mid-range as well for my D300; either a 17-55 or the 24-70. I have a Nikkor 12-24 for the wide end, so I'm leaning more towards the 24-70 since 17-55 has quite a bit of overlap with the 12-24. The 24-70 will also be a safer choice if I ever go full frame, and I think I would eventually.
However, the 17-55 is a more useful range on a DX, and I can sell the 12-24, and pick up the Tokina 11-16 that I've watching along with the 17-55 for what I would pay for the 24-70.
Any suggestions/opinions, I'm right in the middle and it's been driving me nuts lately.
donut, I know many make the warning to buy a lens you can use on a ff if you get one someday. It is my opinion that one should buy the lens that works best with the body you own. Who knows when or if there will be a ff body in the future, but should that happen, it's so easy to sell the old lenses here or eBay that, to me, there is very little financial risk.
but another thing is that the 17-55 is almost 4 years old now with the 24-70 having been released just a few months ago. update for the 17-55 possible soon? VR maybe? but that, along with ff, is just a conjecture. so i what i really want to know is, has anyone ever had both or went from one to the other on a dx sensor? what are your thoughts?
Nobody is throwing out the Tamron 17-50? At around $350-$375 used it is hard to beat... Mine is so sharp wide open that I decided to sell my 35 f2. IMO, a great lens if you don't want to invest a lot of $$ into a DX lens...
Tom, I also "switched" from Canon. In quotes because I still own some Ls. On my prior Canons, I trusted only Ls after mistakes with consumer lenses. When I switched to Nikon, I bought the 18-200VR based on the great reviews I read on forums like these. While not a total waste, it did not meet my expectations. The lesson learned was that it's the same on Nikon as it is on Canon. Buy the best lens you can afford. Buy the fastest lens you can afford. Buy constant aperture lenses if you can afford it. The lens I recommend are,
14-24/2.8 (Best wide-zoom there is)
17-55/2.8 or 24-70/2.8
I chose the 17-55/2.8 because I really appreciate the smaller size and lighter weight. The 24-70L was my main lens on the 5D for a long time so I'm keenly aware of what a little extra weight can do to you after prolong usage. Plus, the 17-55 is sharp, built like an L or better, and focuses amazingly fast.
I doubt a new 17-55/2.8 is in the works. Nikon needs alot of work on their lens lineup. 17-55 is just not a priority right now when they have nothing to compete against the 24-105L IS, L primes, or f/4 L zooms. These holes in their lineup is what keeps me holding onto some of my Ls.
sflxn wrote:
I doubt a new 17-55/2.8 is in the works. Nikon needs alot of work on their lens lineup. 17-55 is just not a priority right now when they have nothing to compete against the 24-105L IS, L primes, or f/4 L zooms. These holes in their lineup is what keeps me holding onto some of my Ls.
Yeah, I'm " holdin' " too. I had the Nikkor 17-55 and it paled by comparison to the 17-55 IS
I had. The AF-S 28-70 has amazing IQ and AF speed. If I need wider I'll break out my 16-35L
and 1DmkII. Love my Nikon primes but keep the C word gear close by.
Andre Labonte wrote:
Another vote for the 17-55 f/2.8. Throw in a 50mm prime and maybe 105VR micro.
I have 2 of the 3 and so far and it has been the perfect combo on my D300. The 17-55 is built like a tank and I love the images that it is producing. My 50mm 1.4 serves as my low light option lens and I can't wait to get my 105 for my macro work.
Eventually I'll pickup the 70-200VR for motorsports...
Edited on May 09, 2008 at 06:03 AM
May 09, 2008 at 06:02 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
fpnunes wrote:
I have 2 of the 3 and so far and it has been the perfect combo on my D300. The 17-55 is built like a tank and I love the images that it is producing. My 50mm 1.4 serves as my low light option lens and I can't wait to get my 105 for my macro work.
Eventually I'll pickup the 70-200VR for motorsports...
I wish I had the 50 f/1.4, right now I have the 50 f/1.8 and it serves me well, but the extra 2/3 stop would be nice. I have the 70-200VR and it is a dream on the D300. Works well with the 1.7TC too for the extra reach.
As for the micro lenses, the 105VR is on my list, but I want to check out the Sigma 150 micro first ... I hear it is on par with the 105VR and offers some advantages like a little extra working distance and a tripod foot.
Mike Holloway wrote:
Nobody is throwing out the Tamron 17-50?
Good question, Mike. I've used some Tammy's before but not this one. I was never completely pleased with my others. However I hope others may add their experiences with this lens, especially to find out how it compares with the Nikon. I expect it's AF is slower, but would love to know more about it's IQ.
Great price, and great weight advantage against the Nikon.
I was thinking of picking up a D40 to use as a second body for my next vacation and just permanently attaching a wide angle zoom on it (the D300 spends too much time with the 300mm attached). But I think the Tamron is out because it doesn't have an internal focus motor.
I've just picked up a D300 kit coming from Canon and this is what I got:
D300
Nikon 17-55
Sigma 30f1.4
Tokina 12-24
Probably going to pick up a Sigma 50-150f2.8, 105 Macro VR, or 85f1.4 on the tele side but undecided.
I managed to pick up all those bits used for quite a substantial savings over a new kit. I might have gone with the New Tokina 11-16 but its not available in Canada and I don't shoot that wide normally.
