What bump will I get: Going to 17-55m f2.8 vs 18-200mm 3.5-5.6?

<p>I am no longer just content to accept the softness of my Nikon 18-200mm lens in certain situations. I bought it as a travel and event lens for convenience. Now, I've read the reviews of the 17-55mm f2.8 and just wonder if anyone here has any experience in DX (D300 in my case) with both of these lenses... regardless of the aperture it is set at, and the difference in sharpness I will see 55mm and below.<br>

Anyone have an opinion comparing the two lenses?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have used The 17-55mm f/2.8 on a D300, and the 18-200 only briefly, as I returned it. I think you'll see a big improvement with the 17-55 if you use a tripod or freeze movement with flash. Hand-held the VR of the 18-200mm will sometimes give it the advantage. If you don't need the toughness of the Nikon 17--55mm, the original non-AFS Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 comes close, and it might actually do better in resisting flare when shooting against the light.</p>

<p>I've still got a D300, and an 18-200 I've used off an on over the years for convenience on it and a D200 and a D3200. In some cases produced some very good results, when it's used with care. I've also got the 17-55/2.8, and there's almost no comparison, really, in the same focal length ranges - especially if you're using it in low light. First, of course, at 55mm, the 17-55 can still be used at f/2.8, while the 18-200 is quickly pushing f/5.6. That's a <em>big</em> difference in the amount of light being gathered, and that means a big difference in shutter speed and/or ISO. Also means you have more control over depth of field. <br /><br />Leaving aside mere speed, there's the substantial difference in optical quality. The 17-55/2.8 is a hefty chunk of glass, and produces sharp, contrasty images even when wide open. Probably its only weak spot, not counting its heft and size (and price!) is that it be susceptible to flare when shooting right into a bright light source. Not that the 18-200 is immune from that, obviously.<br /><br />There's really nothing for it but to handle one and see what you think. There's no question you'll like the image quality, but you may balk at the size and weight. And: be very clear on the fact that the 17-55 doesn't have VR. Which has never hurt my feelings, but it's something to know about.<br /><br />I'm mostly shooting FX, now, and tend to use a different recipe of lenses. But as long as I have a DX body or two around for other tasks and backup, the 17-55/2.8 would be one of the last lenses I'd give up. A lot of this depends on the type of shooting you do, obviously, and your tolerance for payload in the field.</p>

<p>For 1/2 the price you could look at the Sigma or Tamron 17-50 models. That's what I did. Went with the Tamron. Been very happy. Much lighter too.</p>

<p>I've used the 17-55/2.8 quite a bit and think it is one of the best lenses Nikon makes. It's big, heavy and pricey but worth all of those costs. If I had to have just one DX lens this would be it. The 18-200 suffers from the fact that it goes from 18mm wide to 200 long. Any such lens has to compromise somewhere and I find that unacceptable and won't own one.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

<p>I agree with Rick. the 17-55/2.8 is the king of dx lenses. This is the only zoom lens that I have ever though was a sharp or sharper than most of the best primes. The bad news is that it is a tank as far as weight is concerned but I agree with Rick there as well, it is worth it I have never used the Tamron 17-50 but have heard good things about it. I have never even had an temptation to sell my 17-55.</p>

<p>-Cheers</p>

<p>The Nikon 17-55 2.8 is a great lens, no doubt about it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There's no question you'll like the image quality, but you may balk at the size and weight.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And you also need to make sure that you are OK with the limited focal range. While I liked the way the 17-55 renders, I eventually realized that it's limited range doesn't suit me all too well and I sold it and kept the 16-35/4 VR instead. Even less range - but the 35-55 isn't something I miss. If I would purchase a DX lens in that range nowadays, then it would be the Sigma 18-35/1.8.</p>

<p>I switched to the 17-55 f/2.8 as my walk around lens about two years ago and I absolutely love it. Paired on a D7100 for me, it is an amazing combination. If you can afford it, skip the third party lenses and by the Nikon. To save some money, look for a used one from a trusted dealer. I bought mine used for $950.</p>

<p>This is also a solid lens. While not the bulk and weight of something like the 70-200, it is a solid and heavier lens compared to the others. I love the way that this feels as you know it is not a toy.</p>

<p>Here's a sample: http://www.photo.net/photo/17731295</p>

<p>Once you try this lens, you will not put it down!</p>

<p>I've used the 17-55mm f2.8 on both D300 and D7100, and have shot with a D7000 with 18-200mm VR attached (borrowed.) The f2.8 lens is obviously better in low light, has less distortion, and is sharper over all. The difference in sharpness pretty much disappears around f8, IMO. This is a great lens if you shoot in low light (sports, weddings, events, night shots etc.) BUT as others mention, it is heavy & bulky. I would not call it a "walk around lens" or a general purpose lens. A better choice for that might be the 16-85mm VR or the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS (which is smaller.) As some here say, the 17-55mm is a great lens, but you always have to evaluate photo gear this way: what will it do for me & how does it fit my style? Something can be a great lens but maybe not for what you do. The idea is to match gear to its use.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>matt covered the basics, but keep in mind that the 17-55 was introduced 11 years ago, and was designed as a pro lens for pro DX bodies (of which the d300 is probably the last Nikon will ever make). if you're rough on your lenses and plan on using it in situations where it can get dinged a lot, then it's probably a good idea. but 'm not sure it still reigns as the king of DX zooms, anymore.</p>

<p>having used the tamron and sigma 17-50's extensively over the last 6-7 years for event/PJ as well as travel/candid/street, the tank-like nikon wouldnt be my first choice unless i was exclusively doing events. the (non-VC) tamron i had was practically a featherweight but had excellent optics--sharpest 2.8 zoom i ever owned--and was much more durable than it looked, thanks to a thick rubber bumper. the compact size was a big plus for candid/street shooting, especially in environments where you dont want to announce, "hey, i have an expensive camera!!!"</p>

<p>the sigma i have now is a bit larger and heavier than the tamron, but has OS, which can give you about 3-4 stops of shutter or ISO in low-light situations when shooting stills. it's been a dependable performer optically in the 3+ years i've owned it; basically it's my go-to DX lens. i paid almost $800 for mine then, but at the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003A6H27K?ie=UTF8&tag=peakclick-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B003A6H27K">current price</a>, it's hard to justify even a used 17-55 over this.</p>

<p>if i was buying now, however, and i could spend a bit more than $500-$550, i'd strongly consider the newer sigma 18-35/1.8, which smokes the 17-55 from an IQ and low-light perspective--which is a consideration on a d300, which is high-ISO-challenged compared to newer bodies--although that limited range wouldnt be as good for walkaround use. in that case, i'd want to at least have something longer (which would be true even in the case of a lens which went to 50 or 55, only more so), i.e. 70-300 VR for travel, and a 2.8 tele for events. if i planned on doing more walkaround than event shooting, i might also consider the sigma 17-70/2.8-4 OS.</p>

<p>honestly, the OP will gain image quality from just about any lens which breaks up that 11x zoom range of the 18-200. it's tempting to think of the 17-55 as a magic bullet due to its relatively high cost, but IMO it's not optically superior enough to the 3rd party options at this point. What it does have is super-quick AF (the sigmas with HSM are pretty good here too) and superior build quality--but at the cost of (a lot) of added weight.</p>

<p>if you're set on the nikon 17-55 despite all our sage advice, you will at least see a marked improvement in IQ at every focal length as well as all the benefits of constant aperture.</p>

<p>Despite the "all our sage advice" comment, you can see that there are different perspectives on using Nikon versus third party lenses. You heard from some people who swear by the Nikon while others say that the Sigma and Tamron lens are cheaper and better. Do further research and make your own decision.</p>

<p>Wish you the best.</p>

<p>"for pro DX bodies (of which the d300 is probably the last Nikon will ever make)" You may want to check out the new D9300.</p>

<p>@barry, even if the 17-55 is optically better than the sigma/tamron 17-50s, which it may or may not be, i highly doubt it's $800 better, which is the difference between new prices. even factoring in used 17-55 prices, the sigma and tamron 17-50s are still significantly less expensive and come with multi-year warranties. as i noted earlier, the 17-55 is from 2003. so if you're buying used, you may be buying a sample that's seen years of hard use. even the <a href="http://www.bythom.com/1755lens.htm">thom hogan review </a>of it is with a d70. just saying; the AF-S motors are usually the first thing to go with those lenses, as well, so the older the design, the more you roll the dice there too. the sigma 18-35/1.8 OTOH is almost certainly better optically (sharper, less distortion) than the nikon, in addition to having more modern coatings and a faster aperture. i've already outlined the pros and cons, respectively, of the nikon and its competitors, but for me what it comes down to is this: i wouldnt buy a new 17-55 these days, and i'd only consider a low-mileage used one, in mint condition, at a very very good price, and even then, only if i was mainly going to be shooting exclusively in situations which justified its better build and heavy weight. as always, YMMV.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"for pro DX bodies (of which the d300 is probably the last Nikon will ever make)" You may want to check out the new D9300.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tim, you are talking as if that D9300 actually existed. That is highly misleading. D9300 is nothing more than some model number a rumor site throws out to generate web traffic. There is absolutely no information to be checked out.</p>

<p>Between convenience and optical performance, certainly the 17-55 f/2.8 sacrifcies one and gains the other, and the 18-200 is a perfect example of the other end of the scale.<br>

Yet, the small range of 17-50/55 f/2.8 lenses is what always have kept me from getting one, as f/2.8 never was a top priority for me. A lens as the Sigma 17-70 f/2.8-4 or 16-85VR (which I have) hits a perfect middle ground in adding that bit of useful range, without massive optical sacrifices other than aperture.</p>

<p>To me, the key first question is the importance of having f/2.8. If you shoot events regularly, it's pretty important, and I would look at the Sigma and Tamron options (as they're a lot cheaper, lighter and optically you're not sacrificing a lot). If you're too frequently on the edge of too-low-light, the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8. If events and low light make up a small portion, and it's mostly for travel and convenience, my money would go to the 16-85VR instead, despite being pricey for a f/5.6 zoom.<br>

So, it all depends on your specific uses (and hence needs) and what makes the best compromise.</p>

<p>Any differences you see will be dependent on a number of factors - the type of files you shoot (RAW vs JPG), what software you use to process them, the final use of your files (internet or prints) and if making prints, the final size of your prints.</p>

<p>A few things to consider...<br /> The 18-200mm is at its best in the 18-55mm range. For typically sized prints on the smaller side for uncropped images, you will likely not see much if any differences in sharpness (I am not saying that there would not be differences (perhaps) if you pixel peep, just that you would likely not be able to see them in smaller prints). Through software, you can correct many common image issues, including sharpness issues, especially with programs that offer lens specific image correction features. Through careful processing of RAW images, the differences might be minimal (again print size becomes important in seeing any differences).</p>

<p>I owned the 17-55mm lens years ago and used it exclusively for event photography when I had DX bodies. It is a fine lens and would be an excellent addition to your current lens, as images may look better with it because of its fast aperture. You may get better results in lower light as well. At this point, there are many of them available used at very reasonable prices.</p>

<p>Hi Wade<br>

My vote goes for the Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 OS, its a really great lens, smaller and lighter than the Nikon. And in addition to that if you look at the tests online such as DXO it outperforms the Nikon as well.</p>

 

<p>Yup, another lens that Nikon seems reluctant to update to even stay on parity with the others. </p>

<p>Another sign, despite rumours, that Nikon has no intention of keeping DX a Pro format.</p>

<p>Alternatively, if Nikon does decide to re-Pro DX, there's going to one heck of a release of kit involved!</p>

<p>I've got an early no-HSM Sigma 18-50 f2.8 which I still happily use on my D300.</p>

<p>It is one of Nikons best lenses you will see a dramatic improvement. The 18-200 is a kit lens that is not very good in my opinion.As a side note skip the 9300 I hear the 10,300 is in the planning stages.</p>

<p>As others have been pointing out: what are you specific needs? Are you using longer focal lengths? Do you need f 2.8? Do you need VR for low light situations? Analyze what your needs are and go from there. I once had an 18-200 and returned it because of poor image quality. My original 18-70 was really good, after I sent it back to Nikon 4 times. I have a good 18-105 VR now and I find the range quite useful, using 105 for quick portraits, and 18mm for landscapes. I sent it back once for adjustment and it performs well enough for me (edge sharpness). I do use the VR in low light and find it very useful. The lens is tack sharp on the D7100 too. For my needs a zoom that only goes to 55mm would not be as useful. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>you will likely not see much if any differences in sharpness (I am not saying that there would not be differences</p>

</blockquote>

<p>there's little doubt that any of the 2.8 standard DX zooms will be sharper than the 18-200 on a D300, with less distortion throughout the range. if you mainly shoot at f/8, the differences will be more minimal, but who buys a 2.8 lens to shoot @ f/8?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Eric, I clearly stated <strong>TWICE</strong> " For typically sized <strong>prints on the smaller side</strong>" - "just that you would likely not be able to see them<strong> in smaller prints"</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong>and</strong><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

I also <strong>very clearly</strong> stated <strong>"I am not saying that there would not be differences</strong>".<br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong> </strong></p>

<p>Everybody is shouting that the 17-55 will be markedly improved in the range the two lenses share... This entirely depends on how you shoot and how you use your images.</p>

<p>If you're shooting at 8 x 10 and lower and normally shoot on a tripod at f5.6 or f8... I doubt you'll see any difference. If you're a pixel peeper, that's another story. If you shoot wide open in "available darkness" all the time, also.</p>

<p>I would find the 17-55 lens too big and heavy for "walk around" photography, so I would probably get too tired to take the really awesome shots I wouldn't miss with a smaller lens (like my venerable old 18-70).</p>

<p>That said, I think that the 18-200 superzooms were a great idea in the age of 6MP and I was glad I had one for a trip where I couldn't take a lot of gear (I wish the 16-85 had existed then), but once we got to 10 and 12 and beyond... not so much.</p>

<p>And... I would think that the difference in IQ between the Nikon 17-55 and the Sigma and Tamron equivalents would be that much (if any) in "real world" situations... So...</p>

<p>I know what I would do. I'd get rid of the 18-200 and pick up a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and a Nikon 70-300 VR. What a great kit THAT would make.</p>

<p>If your only going to shoot at 8x10 and lower why not just get a point and shoot and save all the $$</p>