ramon_v__california_ Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 finally got my nikon 17-55mm f2.8. a little heavy but i'm happy. thanks to all those who convinced me. i have a friend who shoots with the kit lens on his D70. with a limited budget we are thinking of the two lenses mentioned for his f2.8 needs. should he just stick with his D70 kit lens? there are good reviews of the 17-35mm. haven't gotten to read (good or bad) reviews of the 20-40mm. but he's leaning on the 17-35mm. thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jv1 Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 I don't know how good the kit lens is at the wide end, wide open, but it's less than a full stop smaller than f/2.8, is it really worth the upgrade? If yes, I'd seriously consider the AF Nikkor 20mm f/2.8, because you'll get the same speed but quality will be much better. A prime on itself can be quite limiting sometimes, but if you have the kitlens to complement it, I would not doubt [that is, if he really needs another lens]. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klix Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 I don't see any significant advatange that either lens would have over the kit lens; it's not like we're talking about an upgrade, such as if he decides to spring for the 17-55mm. If he wants something for low light, get a sub-f2.0 prime lens, such as a 50/1.8. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo5 Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 <i> KL IX Prolific Poster, jan 06, 2006; 03:01 p.m. I don't see any significant advatange that either lens would have over the kit lens; it's not like we're talking about an upgrade, such as if he decides to spring for the 17-55mm. If he wants something for low light, get a sub-f2.0 prime lens, such as a 50/1.8.</i><P> It is important to remember that when shooting in low light, a wide lens can be handheld at a slower shutter speed than a normal or telephoto. Therefore I wouldn't recommend a 50mm 1.8 for low light photography, rather a 35mm 2.0 would be more likely a good canidate. <P> The Sigma 20mm 1.8 is also a good lens for low light photography. It is not as sharp in the corners as the Nikon 20mm 2.8 might be, but it is a full stop brighter.<P> Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leslie_cheung Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 I would just add a fast prime combo say sigma 20mm f1.8 + nikon 50mm f1.8 (or 35mm f2). or buy a bargain older nikon 20-35mm f2.8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramon_v__california_ Posted January 6, 2006 Author Share Posted January 6, 2006 thank you for the inputs. they are very helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now