Camera or Lens....

[tom_burke3]

Which do you think would produce the best image: a D50 w/17-55 f2.8, or a D80 w/18-55?

 

I'm thinking from the persective of someone who can only afford to buy one item, not two, this year, and

who already has a D50 + kit lens. Which would be the better upgrade for them, the 17-55 or the D80?

[StuartMoxham]

I would go with the lens. The lenses are with you forever. A sharp image from a D50/D70/D100 would be better than a soft image from a D80/D200/D2X.

[manitas]

Go with the lens.

[leicaglow]

The lens is magnificent. The 18-55mm is a dog - at least my sample is. The D50 will produce nice images regardless.

[eric friedemann]

I think this is a hard question to answer. On the one hand, even stopped down two to three f-stops, I'd expect the 17-55mm lens to produce somewhat sharper images than the kit lens at any focal length. On the other hand, the D80 has about a third more resolution as the D50.

 

 

Upgrading either the D50 to the D80 OR the 18-55mm to the 17-55mm should result in noticeably better images. Which upgrade would give you the most dramaitc increase in image quality is something I think you'd have to test to be sure of.

[Peter_in_PA]

I'd generall always splurge on the lens, but I'd research that one good before I bought it,

the reviews seem to indicate that although it's a great lens, it's pretty overpriced.

 

http://www.bythom.com/1755lens.htm (thinks it's a bit costly for what it is)

 

http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_zoom_01.html#AFS17-55G (He LOVES it!)

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1755.htm (He thinks it's costly, too, but comes to the

review with more presumptions and biases than the other two. Take Ken's reviews always

with a grain, a couple grains, heck a whole shaker full of salt...)

 

Yes, I include Ken's review (some have chided for including Ken with Bjorn and Thom)

because I find, in this case, his review to be as informed as theirs.)

 

You don't, however, say how you'll be USING this lens. If you're talking about a general

purpose walk-around lens, the 17-55 will be VERY heavy and you might find it out of

balance with your D50, making it hard to frame and very hard to hold steady at slow

shutter speeds (at that price it should have VR imho, then it's a no-brainer...). If you're

talking portraiture, it might be too short at the long end, if you're talking wedding, it

might be only half of what you need? I'm guessing you're an amateur like me. If you need

it for indoor studio work... a couple primes will do... Someone would need to know how

you use your camera more before making a definitive recommendation... but I'd still

upgrade the lens before the camera... The D50 is GREAT!

 

I wonder what two or three primes or small zooms you could get instead that were better

for this very high price. (I'll hesitate to recommend my beloved 18-200 VR again today...

but it's the best walk-around lens I've ever used on digital...)

[arnabdas]

D80 + 18-70 AFS would be even better than either of these.

[eric friedemann]

Another way to look at is this- the 18-55mm may be a dog, but its priced accordingly- $100 kitted with the D80 body ($999 body v. $1,099 body with 18-55mm). You could get the better D80 body and get by with the kit lens until you could afford the 17-55mm. Also, you could get $30 or so in trade on the 18-55mm when you're ready to buy the 17-55mm, or keep the 18-55mm as a back-up lens.

 

 

The 17-55mm is a superb lens in every way. I would caution though that the 17-55mm is designed for pros who want the constant f/2.8 aperture and are willing to put up with the size (almost seven inches long with its hood) and weight (almost two pounds) of the lens.<div></div>

[tech-pan]

I would pick the lens. You can put that on your 24mp Nikon in a couple years.

[eric friedemann]

Arnab, the 18-70mm is a better lens than the 18-55mm. But I'm not seeing the D80 kitted with the D80, so you'd wind up paying full price for the 18-70mm, $319. While I like the 18-70mm better than the 18-55mm, I don't like it three-plus times as much.

[eric friedemann]

"But I'm not seeing the D80 kitted with the 18-70mm, ..."

[ShunCheung]

First of all, I have neither one of those bodies nor the 18-55mm, so I am only guessing a bit.

 

As far as which combo would give you the "better" image, IMO, the answer is, as usual, it depends.

 

For example, if you are shooting a dim indoor wedding and you need to shoot at ISO 800, 1/30 sec and f2.8, I would pick the 17-55mm at f2.8 with the D50. If you use the 18-55, you might end up at 1/15 sec or even 1/8 sec and some subject movement; in other words, you may end up with some largely useless images. Exactly which body is behind the lens is moot.

 

If you are shooting inside a studio with plenty of light under your control so that you can shoot at f8 or f11, you might not see a big difference between the much-more-expensive 17-55mm/f2.8 and the fairly cheap 18-55 at f11. In that case you want to take advantage of the newer D80 and the extra pixels.

 

But if I were Tim, I would upgrade to the 17-55 DX first.

[chris_vincent2]

Personally I would get the 18-200. This will enable you to explore all kinds of image making over the next 12 months.

 

I have the 17-55 and although it is a fabulous (and very heavy) lens, I find that 55 is just a bit too short. Also the VR on the 18-200 means I can leave the tripod at home for portraits - even in the studio.

 

Alternatively keep what you have and buy the 12-24 - you'll discover a whole new world!

[HuskyMason1]

IMO... the 17-55 lens with the D50

[rjacksonphoto]

Have to agree with most of the other posters, upgrade the lens first.

[walterh]

Do not forget the tripod. If you want to use the full potential of all bodies 50-80-200 with any lens be aware that shooting technique may be the limiting factor for "sharpness" for many situations except perhaps bright sunlight. A D50 with any of the lenses in question may be the best solution if you shoot at f8 and ISO 200 from a tripod - you may blow away any other combo shot from a shaky hand :-P

[chris_vincent2]

To be honest Tom, you don't need to change what you have.

 

Spend the money on travel to places where you can take new kinds of images and challenge your own conventions about photography.

 

It doesn't have to be Maui! Just get out a road atlas, close your eyes and stick in a pin.

[dennis lee]

Tom, I have the 17-55 as many others here, and it is a great lens and I love it for work. But

when it comes to play, it is VERY large. If you carry a camera with you all the time like I USED

to do, that lens becomes a bit burdensome in my opinion. I actually stopped carrying my

camera because of it. Granted my camera, D2H, is big too. The package of the two of them

is just too much. I am so tired of hearing "Wow, that's a big camera/lens." I've actually gone

back to carrying my 28 2.0 on the D2H, I should consider carrying the 18-70 again but once

you've used the 17-55 it's hard to go back. And the honest truth is, when I'm going out and

think there might be a possibility for a picture, I do take the 17-55 more times than not. So

what does that tell you?<div></div>

[Peter_in_PA]

Lots of great info for you, Tom... but, again... Don't listen to ANY of our specific

recommendations until we know HOW you will use this lens. What kind of photography, etc...

NO lens is great for everything...