Mate for Nikon 17-55mm?

[keithdunlop]

The D200 has finally moved me from my F5 for travel and documentary

work, and my main lens will be the 17-55mm 2.8 AFS. But what do I do

with my 80-200 2.8 lens? It becomes a 120-300 on the D200, but I

would prefer to keep my 80-200 range. What do you guys use to get an

80-200 focal length (with 2.8 constant aperture) on a DX size sensor?

[ted turner]

Keep your 80-200mm. Or, if the 55-80 gap is just too much, then sell it and buy the 70-200 VR instead. There really isn't a seamless way to transition to digital and replicate the exact equivalent field of view with 2.8 lenses.

 

<p>You could get the trio: 12-24mm, 28-70mm, and 70-200mm. And speaking of the 12-24mm, the difference between 12mm and 17mm is more significant than the 55mm to 80mm gap, IMHO.

 

<p>Ted

<p>www.pbase.com/turnert

[jorgen_udvang]

I wonder why this question doesn't come up more often. A 50-200 or even 50-150 2.8

would be a very natural partner for the DX format cameras, but so far there's nothing

available.

 

A possible alternative setup is 12-24 f4.0, 28-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8, but then none of the

lenses are really wide angle to tele.

[ted turner]

I might also add that you may find the 18-70mm or the 18-200mm VR lenses adequate for some of your work, particularly when traveling. They're slow, but the prices for these lenses is certainly right given their quality.

 

<p>Ted

<p>www.pbase.com/turnert

[ted turner]

Well, I did forget to mention the Nikkor 50-135mm f/3.5 AIS. Yes, it's a manual lens, it's not a 2.8, and it would be hard to find one.

 

<p>Ted

<p>www.pbase.com/turnert

[ilkka_nissila]

Yeah, if you can find one of those 50-135/3.5 lenses you'd be cooking.

 

I like the long reach of my 70-200 with digital. With VR it's easy to hand-hold inspite of the crop factor. On film I feel it doesn't give me enough reach to justify the bulk. I do still use it but more often I grab one of my smaller tele primes.

[steve_chan5]

I have the 50-135 f3.5 and its a great little lens. All manual of course, but the main thing for me was getting aperture priority back on the D200 body. Snag one if you can find it - losing half a stop is not so bad, and it is very good wide open. Lighter than an 80-200 as well.

 

But the 70-200 VR is a great lens. I'm sold on the VR ever since getting the 18-200VR.

[Ed_Ingold]

The 80-200/2.8 is not a bad mate for the 17-55, expecially for weddings and possibly landscapes. The 17-55 alone would be good for most other types of events, urban photography and people-pictures.

 

A better choice for a 2nd lens would be a 70-200 VR. There is less gap, but more important, the 70-200 can be hand-held down to 1/15 second. I found I did not use the 80-200 much because a tripod is required for sharp images.

 

A focal length overlap would be nice, but you would need a 28-70/2.8 - an expensive solution for a mere 15mm. (I got along for many years with a Leica M2 and 35mm, 50mm and 90mm lenses.) Once you have used these sharp f/2.8 zooms, you won't be happy with the results of a consumer-level lens.

[kenneth_rhee]

There is really nothing on the market that would satisfy your need (from Nikon). My solution was to get 35-70mm 2.8. It's one more lens, but this lens turned out to be one of the best portrait lens I've owned. If you haven't bought the 17-55mm, you might want to consider 17-35 and 35-70mm combination since these are one of the two best zoom lenses Nikon made over the years (also they are not dx format, which means they can be used in regular 35mm film or Canon full-frame sensor camera with Nikon adaptors).

[harley ray]

I agree the gap between 55 and 80 is not that huge. If you can't live without something in that range perhaps a used 35-105 from KEH for around $110 USD might fill the gap??

 

Good luck with your decisions.

[iwong]

If the guy already has a 17-55/2.8, why are people suggesting the 28-70/2.8? Sell the 17-55 and suffer a big loss? The gap from 55 to 70 will be minimal, whereas the gap from 24 to 28 (12-24/4, 28-70/2.8) will be quite significant.

 

Get the 70-200VR. It's a superb lens. I also got the 60/2.8 Micro, because I needed the macro functionality, not because I wanted to "fill the gap". But if you really need to fill the gap between 55 to 70, the 60/2.8 might be pressed into service in a pinch.

[farmer on the hill]

I am in the same situation, I just got my D200 with the 17-55 2.8. I also have a 80-200 2.8 s.wave which I will not part with. I am thinking of getting a prime lens to fill the gap. I think Nikon make a macro in this range, this will also give me excelent macro capability. Forget about getting the 18-70, I have used one of these lenses and found it to be a piece of c--p. very soft on the right side of the format.