17-55mm for Street Photography abroad

I am a serious amateur. The output of my work is for pleasure but I want the

best possible images. I shoot with a D200 and 18-70mm kit lens. My primary

goal is travel and street photography of people mainly in Latin America and

Asia. I use CS2 for post processing.

 

I shot tests at a camera store with the 17-55mm and 18-70mm. The difference at

18mm was plain and less obvious from 24-55mm to me. Now I have discovered DXO

software which corrects lens problems to a high degree of accuracy.

 

I ruled out primes because I do not want to fumble with lens changes on 3rd

world streets and the stories about dust on the sensor worried me along with

the bill to send the camera to Nikon every 6 months.

 

My concerns are:

 

1. After correction with DXO or other software, is the image difference

significant between the 17-55/18-70 lenses - all other variables equal and

excluding f 2.8 etc? (your subjective opinion)

 

2. Two major reviewers have said the flaring and ghosting are serious problems

with 17-55mm. Is this true?

 

3. Several have said the size and weight make it more of a studio lens than

street photography lens. Also this lens is about superior construction quality

versus superior lens quality as found with other Nikon lenses. Is this true?

 

4. Will I regret not having the 55-70mm reach?

 

5. Several have said they had bad factory lenses which Nikon replaced right

away. How should I test my lens and why doesn?t Nikon do this before it is

shipped?

 

6. Should I have ruled out primes?

 

Thank you my fellow and experienced friends

I have had problems with flare and ghosting when shooting at night with this lens. Otherwise, it is great except for the weight. You won't see a problem in daytime shooting. I used to have an 18-70, but I dropped and broke it. Yes, I miss the 55-70 range but f/2.8 and being sharp wide open is important to me.

I am not certain how you want to define "best possible images", but ruling out consideration of primes might be limiting your possible results. It sounds like you want the best relults possible within your parameters, but you are also open to adjusting your parameters to some degree or another.

 

For example, are you willing to use a 17-55 as a walk-around lens? It is significantly larger and heavier than the 18-70 and for some, that is a big consideration. If weight and cost (or worries about it being damaged or stolen) are not issues, then this might not be a consideration for you.

 

Regarding focal length, if you have not yet settled on a focal length or range in your shooting style, I would say that for now, there is no wrong answer. Yes, you can always want a longer lens, but at what point is a lens long enough? Do you have a favorite focal length that you are currently using? I often enjoy 35mm and 105mm lenses for street photography (35mm FF). A photojournalist friend of mine who died way too young, and who had more artistic talent in his hand than I could ever muster in my whole body loved 28mm on a Leica, a lens that I always hated. What I am trying to say is only you can know what works best for you.

 

If it was me, I'd take the 18-70 because it is compact, light weight, a bit more discreet, and I have seen many an excellent image produced by one. Yes, I have also seen many fine images taken with a 17-55, but I think I would be hard pressed to tell the difference except in low-light situations where the 18-70 just cannot compete with the 17-55.

 

Try and think through your trip a bit more and I think that you will be closer to making a decision that works for you. Happy trails!

I carry a 17-35/2.8, as well as the 28-70 and 70-200, and have traveled throughout Europe and the US with this combination. If I had a 17-55, the 17-35 would stay at home, and possibly the 28-70 as well.

 

The weight of any of these lenses gets hard on your neck. I hold it in the crook of my left elbow to manage the weight, and to keep it from swinging. It's something you deal with. I switched to a backpack for the weight of the remaining gear. Every ounce counts - choose wisely what stays and what goes.

 

Primes definitely have the advantage when shooting into the sun or lights. I carry a 55/2.8 AIS Micro, especially for stitched panoramas, and a 24/2 AIS for something a little wider.

Unless you are shooting a lot of pictures under low lighting conditions such as at night or indoors, save your money. The 18-70 is a really good lens, and with DXO, it can't be beat! DXO also has incredible noise reduction software so you can easily shoot at higher ISO and get great results.

 

If you were to get any new lens, I would suggest the 18-200. My images shot with the 18-200 when processed with DXO look as good as if they were shot with my 17-55 or 70-200.

As a working travel photogrpaher i can alomost guarante that you will miss the 55-70 mm range. There is numerous times when you need that extra reach to make the shot. You do not mention what other lenses you have but this may not be such a problem if you have a 70-200 lens. If you do not have that extra range you are really limiting yourself. Depending on your budget i would recomend the Nikon 12-24 f4 and the 28-70 f2.8. These lenses cover the majority of work from portraits to street scenes and landscapes whilst giving you the best possible optics combined with reach. If you are really serious about your travel photgraphy i believe the 70-200 or 80-200 both 2.8 are invaluble. Atleast that is what i have found in my travels. I can not remember going on a trip without all these lenses.

As for what some people above me said, they are correct sometimes a prime is the only lens that will do so maybe a 50mm 1.8 and a 85mm are some good fairly cheap extras. Hope that has been of soem help.

I think that the whole issue of is lens A better/sharper than lens B is way over rated and a distraction to making good images. (People also parrot a lot of truisms regarding primes and zooms. The 17-55 is sharper than my 24/2.8, 28/2.8 primes, about equal to my 35/2 and only slightly softer than my 50/1.4 & 50/1.8.)

 

Be that as it may, this is what I can tell you about the two lenses: one of the most significant differences between them is the AF speed. When shooting people on the street the 17-55 will give about twice as many in focus pictures as the 18-70. This is particularly true if you're shooting at larger apertures and shallow DOF. If you do shoot at large apertures, do not discount the performance in the f2.8 - 4 range. The 17-55 also has much more robust construction than the 18-70. The 17-55 is a lot heavier and bigger (particularly if you use the lens hood, which I always do).

 

Having said all that, if I was doing travel photography and only using one body with one lens, I would get the 18-200 VR lens. A full focal length range, with the ability to shoot at low shutter speeds with VR trumps being able to count eye lashes for getting striking images.

CS2 will do what DXO as far as distortion correction as does PTlens which will do it automatically.

 

Save the settings for each focal length and recall as necessary from the table you develope. The recall (load) automatically makes the distortion correction.

 

Make this step one.

 

Found under filter-distort-lens correction. In addition it does perspective, chromatic aberation, and vignetting correction.

One alternative is the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8. It's a fine lens, and probably less weighty than the Nikon, and it's very, very sharp. PhotoZone did a full test.

 

Somehow, trying to fix aberrations in software doesn't seem like a replacement option over getting a good lens.

 

I would suspect that Nikon tests every lens, but that with some models the tolerance of what is acceptable is wider. I also think that most of the differences between given lenses of the same brand and spec are anecdotal perceptions that may say more about the photographer than the lens itself. Obviously you can get a defective product from anyone, but I see far less variation in quality than I did 30 years ago when I was selling cameras as a grad student...

I just spent quite a bit of time in China with this lens and a D80, and, overall I liked it quite a bit more than the 18-70 that I also have. My copy is very sharp over the entire frame even at f2.8, and with the hood attached, flare has not been a problem. I didn't miss the 55-70 range, but I did sometimes wish it had gone wider. The focus is fast, and the construction is robust. I know because I dropped the camera right on the lens at the Great Wall and no damage was evident--sharpness is still great.

 

My key tip would be to never let the camera and lens combo rest on your neck. I use a neck strap for safety, but I always carry the camera with my left hand or, even better, under my left arm, (between my arm and body) lens facing backwards. It's very comfortable and protects the lens.

I travel a lot to Guatemala and do a lot of ethnographic photography. In film days I'd use

primes - 24, 35, 85, and 135. That 135 was very important, especially when

photographing indigenous dances and processions. The smaller the physical size the

better - people seem just less intimidated.

 

I'd recommend, for digital, 18-70 and 70-300 VR. And be careful - don't call attention to

yourself (i.e., reason for smaller physical lens). Nothing against an 18-200, but it extends

too much while zooming - easy to break bumping into something.

 

Another suggestion - don't get caught up in a surging crowd during a procession or fiesta

- prime time for theft.

Here's an album for a street fiesta i just did. 13 of the 37 images are greter than 50 mm on

D70s, a few are between 100 and 135.

 

http://www.pbase.com/lahuasteca/charro_days

 

In Guatemala, Ecuador, and Peru on the street I'd definitely want the added reach. In the

rainforests of Costa Rica and Brasil, maybe not so necessary, but then you'd be dealing with

tripods and macro.

According to Nikon's tests there is essentially no difference in contrast or sharpness between the 17-55 and the 18-70. The MTF graphs are at:

 

http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/lens/af/normal/index.htm

and

http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/lens/af/dx/af-s_dx_zoom17-55mmf_28g_if/index.htm

 

Both lenses are superior the the highly regarded 50mm f1.8, the 35mm f2.0, the 24mm f2.8, the 28mm f2.8, the 85mm f1.4, the 85mm f1.8 and the 20 f2.8.

 

Hard to believe, but you'll find the MTF graphs for all these lenses at the same site:

http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/lens/af/wideangle/index.htm

 

The 70-300 VR works nicely with the 18-70 - add a 50mm f1.8 for low light shots and a 10.5mm for wide shots and you've things pretty well covered.

>>According to Nikon's tests there is essentially no difference in contrast or sharpness between the 17-55 and the 18-70.

 

I've had two 18-70 Nikkors and now have the 17-55. Frankly said there is a huge difference in performance, especially contrast-wise.

 

I've been using DxO Optics Pro since it came out, which means I used it with the 18-70 and 17-55 lenses. Still the difference is there.

 

The two things I truly hate about the 17-55 is a) its size and b) its weight

 

Carsten

P.S.: almost all of the shots in my new India gallery at http://www.cabophoto.com/ind0106.htm were shot with the 17-55, although admittedly the web-sized pictures won't tell you that much about image quality

I have a 17-55/2.8, 18-70, and the 18-200 VR. Frankly, I can't see any huge difference in sharpness or contrast in the files all three lenses produce. If I didn't occasionaly need the speed of the 17-55, I wouldn't choose it over the other two. All three lenses have distortion. I don't notice any objectionable flare in the 17-55, but I'll keep an eye out for it now.

<p>

The 18-70 & the 18-200 hunt a bit more while focusing...especially the 18-200. So that will account for focusing errors. I have a Katzeye screen in my D200 and always check focus using the AF-S (or whatever you call it) manual focusing feature on these lenses.

<p>

Really, except for the most critical applications, most modern lenses are all more than adequate. I also do a lot of travel photography, and over the years I've come to realize that a lens as versatile as the 18-200 VR (which is great for portraits, too) outweighs the sometimes perceived sharpness advantage of faster, larger lenses.

Also...I missed the difference between 55 & 70. I especially missed the difference between 55 & 200 mainly because I never carried a longer (translate to larger & heavier) telephoto zoom.

<p>

I know you asked about the 18-70, but you should take the 18-200VR into consideration.

Jim,

 

while we don't share an opinion about the 17-55...how do you like the KatzEye screen ? I tried some fast MF glass on the D200 (like 50/1.2) but could never reliably focus it, which I can on the F3 and FM2. I was wondering if the KatzEye screen helps with that.

 

Cheers

 

Carsten

Carsten...the Katzeye is great. It has split-image focusing in the center just like the FM2 & F3. It's a bit smaller circle than it is in the full-frame cameras, but it works the same. Judging DOF is also much easier with the Katzeye. I can't recommend it enough. It's a huge improvement over the standard screen...for me anyway.

Carston - just look at the MTF's, the 10 frequency lines are the proxy for contrast when you do that you'll see there's really no difference - maybe you got a couple of bad samples.

sorry Fred, I trust my eyes more than I do an MTF graph published by the manufacturer. The probablity for two bad samples more than a year apart is also not all that high. I understand that we all wish for a cheap lens to perform as well as a more expensive one, but most of the time it just doesn't happen. BTW that is not to say the 18-70 is a bad lens; in fact I think it is very good considering the price.

 

Carsten

Carsten says: "I understand that we all wish for a cheap lens to perform as well as a more expensive one"

 

Actually it is the other way around - many people see undocumented and unprovable advantages to a lens for which they paid too much.

 

Really Carsten, you got yourself a good but limited lens at 3 times what you had to pay for the same performance.

 

Instead of the Nikkor 17-55 f2.8, don't you think the Tanron 17-50 f2.8 is the better choice - it is smaller, lighter, as sharp and contrasty, and costs around $400.

Fred,

 

yes, I looked at the Tamron and decided against it. I also tried a Sigma 17-70 which was not bad except for one corner - it was heavily decentered.

 

Do you think I based my decision to spend the $$ on the 17-55 because I just had too much money (which is certainly not the case) ? I always think it's funny when someone tries to prove that he's the smartest of us all because he buys the cheaper gear which is just as good. Ken Rockwell is also very at that; I think he now recommends the 18-55 Nikkor that comes with the D50 and D40 kits.

 

Carsten

Of the three lenses I mention above I'd have to say that the 17-55 has more of a "clarity" to it...for lack of a better word. In my case, I've simply chosen to use a more versatile lens for traveling (the 18-200VR).

<p>

You pay more for the 17-55 because it's built better, it's faster, and it performs better. To what degree it performs better is subjective. I feel it's slight enough that I'm willing to exchange that better performance for portability.

<p>

Nuances in light and exposure are going to affect your images in more ways than the lens will, as well as the digital sensor itself.

<p>

It's nothing to get hung up on...it's all good.

Getting back to the original post. Kevin, you want the best possible images. You already have the 18-70 - get some of the other lenses mention and compare them to the 18-70. You'll probably find that Nikon's analysis of their lenses is correct - that the lens you already have will give you the best possible images.