is 17-55mm worth the sacrafice?

[rob_shooter]

Have 2 young children. Used to do landscapes but now mostly the kids, lack of time amongst other things.

 

Am seriously thinking of ebaying 4 lenses to get 17-55mm. Lenses are Nikon 50mm 1.8, Nikon 180mm 2.8, tokina 12-24mm and tamron 90mm macro dx.

 

Am sure there will be lots of views, would any of you like to share yours?

 

Thanks in advance

 

Ps camera is DB0, and have SB-800 also.

[a_arun]

Wow, thats a great collection of lenses. Please, please ebay them :-)

 

Seriously, you're better off with a 18-70 added to your kit. And nothing removed. I think the 50/1.8 is a great lens for kids candids. The rest of course are great glass for nature/scapes

[ShunCheung]

Right, for more casual family type children images, I don't see why the 18-70mm DX is not sufficient. You can pick one of those up around $300 or so, depending on new or used. The 18-70 is a slower lens, but if you use it in conjunction with the SB-800, it should be fine.

 

If you still want a 17-55 DX, you can get one new for $1150 now.

[bwcombs]

I agree. I wouldn't get rid of any of them. Add the 18-70mm.

[klix]

For casual photosmostly of kids, no need for the 17-55mm, or even add the 18-70mm for that matter.

 

The 12-24mm actually sounds like it would be your most used, adding as sense of **environmental context** to photos of your kids. That is, assuming they are still young enough that you don't yet need a telephoto to keep up with them. :-)

[wj_lee]

35-70mm 2.8 used is about $300-400? That would fit in nicely into the collection. Short zoom range but you already have wide zoom and 180 for the long end.

[ronnie_law]

Will you sell these lenses direct to someone?

[elliot1]

Unless you need the 2.8 aperture, don't get it. You would be better off with the 18-55 or 18-70 and the sb-600 flash as a combo. (I have the 17-55 and love it, but use it for wedding and event photography.)

[eric_bowen]

I'm a huge fan of the 50 1.8 for kid candids (the fast aperture lets you shoot a lot of natural light shots). After that I would add another vote for the 18-70 plus the SB-800.

 

Granted, if you've got the money who wouldn't want to have the 17-55. :-)

[Uhooru]

Ditto the 18-70. Its a far better lens than its "kit" lens designation would lead you to believe.

[bruce_rubenstein]

The 18-70 is good optically, but I find that its AF to be slow (with a D200). You may have trouble with fast moving kids indoors. I get a vastly better percentage of in focus pictures with the 17-55 than I did with the 18-70. I also have the Tamron 28-75/2.8, and if the Tamron 17-50/2.8 is as good as the 28-75 (and most tests show that it is), then that's what I'd get for family pics. The Nikon 17-55 is a more mechanically robust lens than the Tamron, but that won't be an issue for your usage.

[steve_bellayr]

When your kids are on the ballfield and you are behind the fence that 180 might come in handy.

[ramon_v__california_]

please don't make the mistake of selling any of those lenses.

as suggested, get the 18-70mm and a good flash. at least the sb-600.

if you don't need a flash but need speed, and on a dollar crunch, get the tamron 17-50mm f/2.8.

[joe tarrant]

The UK's Amateur Photographer magazine recently described the Tamrom 17-50/f2.8 as "without doubt among the very best C-sensor-format lenses we have tested".

[stevea]

My grandkids are bothered by the flash, even when bounced off the ceiling. So the next move was to an 85mm f/1.4, which allows no flash. However, it is a bit too long for many shots, so the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. It appears to fill the need, but I have to wait until the end of this month before I see the grandkids.

 

I also have the 17-55. It is a great lens, built like a tank (and weighs like one, too), extremely sharp and fast. It is wonderful for walking around. It is pretty wide at 17mm which is OK for some landscapes and tight quarters for candids and group shots. It used to be the most popular one for me, but since I went to the fast primes, it hasn't seen as much use. It still goes on the camera when I'm walking around not taking pictures of the grandkids.

 

Unless you have the NAS need to have the very best, your usage sounds like the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8DX is overkill. You certainly can try the lenses mentioned by others and you may want to consider the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. It is not going to break the bank and may enable you to get more good shots of the kids.

 

Steve Abramson

[yeux tortu]

Well I guess I am the minority view and would suggest the 17-55 is worth the sacrifice for photographing people, especially young children. There is a reason event photographers use this lens.

 

Is the quality worth it for family snaps, only you can answer this. The 18-70 is not nearly as sharp and it is a little slow for where you generally find people, indoors. If the lenses you own are sitting on a shelf most of the time then I would sell them. The 17-55 will not sit on the shelf.

[will_woodford1]

I just went throug this process!

 

I decided to get a D200 and a Nikon 17-55 just today after much deliberation.

 

Most likely a Tokina 12-24 will be the next purchase and these two will be the lenses I use

the most. I am sorely tempted by the 18-200 Nikkor as an all purpose lens but it will

drive me crazy to have three lenses to choose from.

 

Also got a SB 600 flash.

 

I current;y use a Nikon F and a Leica M6...both of which are overkill for my purposes so

what the hell, may as well get a D200 to add to the overkill.

[paul_neuthaler]

If you add this 20mm 1:3.5 ais to your present kit -- for app. $250.00 -- you will have it all. "Never sell a Leica, and never sell a Nikkor 180mm 1:2.8."<div></div>

[rob_shooter]

Wow!

 

So many replies - and so many different pieces of differing advice. Thank you all. What a dilema!

 

I suppose I need to consider that my kids will grow (they are now 1 & 3) and hopefully I will get more time to do more varying pohotgraphy and that is a real reason to keep the lenses I have.

 

One problem I have is that I like to take photos of them in and around the house and I find the 50mm slightly too long in many situations. I'm therefore left to consider that as the 17-55mm is out of my price reach for now then what is the alternative? I have the 24mm available at the long end of the Tokina so I'm thinking halfway between that and the 50mm may be a good idea. Which therefore leaves me with a couple of alternatives - the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 AFD or Nikon 35mm f/2 AFD, or possibly Nikon 28?. Has anyone compared these? I do prefer primes rather than zooms (the 17-55 appealed because I think the overall image quality may be comparible to primes in many situations).

 

Many thanks

[oski]

Sigma 30mm is a great indoor lens for young kids. Look at my portfolio, look at the Ainsley section. The majority of those pics are with a 30mm Sigma. The 1.4 lets in lots of light, but the focusing can be tough when my daughter is moving. I usually use the 30mm around 2.8.

 

I actually prefer that lens in doors than my Nikon 35-70 because it's super light and less likely to get bonked around while working with kids.

[rob_shooter]

Mmm decisions decisions, after a little more research I wonder if the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 may be the missing piece in the jigsaw? Not going to break the bank, zoom gives me the options to get close to the little critters if they keep mmoving, and covers a decent range.