Nikon 17-55mm 2.8 or 70-200mm 2.8 VR?

[pcassity]

I know there are going to be a lot of different opinions about this but, that

is exactly what I am looking for to help me make a decision. Which of the 2

lenses listed above would you buy first. I am well aware that they are

completely different lenses. I currently use a D200. I have the 50mm 1.8, the

105mm 2.8, and the 18-200 VR. At some point I will probably have both. My

question would be which one is going to give me the 'biggest bang for my buck'?

[donald_weston1]

Pat - It is hard to answer without knowing what you like to shoot mostly. What is your goal, you have a lot covered with the 18-200Vr lens. Do you want a fast wide angle zoom, then the 17-55mm might be a good choice, if you shoot sports or indoors and want to avoid flash, then the 70-200mm would be a good choice. Just need more info before some advice can be offered realistically. Best of luck. Don

[ronald_moravec1]

17/55 if you do mostly normal photography.

[pcassity]

Don, I knew that question was coming.:) I think that the best way to answer is to say I want to be able to take the best pictures I can of whatever I might want to at any given time. I am doing a little pet photography at the moment but I have no limits. The 18-200 has been fine but I ams starting to realize it's limits.

[Peter_in_PA]

I have a similar group of lenses to you, and I would get the 17-55 first, but then

IMMEDIATELY start saving for the 70-200.

[hiro]

Either will have great impact. For me, the beautiful out of focus renderings of the 70-200vr stand right out. Bang for the buck? Hummm. The 17-55 is a little cheaper and I personally find myself in that focal range more often. Flip a coin. Then go have some fun.

[ShunCheung]

Since you already have the 18-200, I would suggest checking the images you have taken with that lens. Do you tend to use the 18mm end or 200mm end more often?

[gan_esh]

It depends on what kind of pet photography. Are they your pets?

If you're doing it for someone else, it would depend on the comfort level of their dog/cat/iguana/mongoose...etc with you around. If you're shooting indoors the 70-200 may be a bit too long on a 1.5x body. If you want close-ups where the face fills the frame, a macro lens may be more suitable.

 

My take:

 

- for small pets, a macro lens

 

- for indoor stuff with flash/strobes... 17-55

 

- for outdoor stuff, like shooting in the yard... 70-200

 

Think of how you shoot. Have you ever wished for a larger aperture when using your 18-200. If yes, at which focal length most often?

 

I guess I didn't help much. Sorry.

 

Cheers!

[aaronsmith]

Pat,

 

I was just in the same decision making process as yourself. I chose to purchase the 17-55 first from B&H. It's in shipping now and I can't wait to put it on my D80. I need it first for portraits and wide angle. However, I am keeping an eye on B&H's website. As soon as they get some 70-200's in stock, I will purchase that as well. I currently have the 18-135 kit lens and a 50 f1.8. As soon as I have my 17-55 and 70-200, I'll be all set. Hope this helps your decision.

 

Aaron

[Ed_Ingold]

The 17-55/2.8 is the new "normal" lens for a DX DSLR. If you might stay with film or go FF in the forseeable future, choose the 17-35/2.8 instead. Both are superb lenses, equal to or better than the prime lenses they replace.

 

The 70-200/2.8 VR is also a superb lens. It's much less useful for general photography, although I use it extensively for concert and brochure photography. For events and travel photography, I use a 17-35 almost exclusively.

 

The 18-200 is a consumer level, "Swiss Army Knife". Like the proverbial knife, it does everything but nothing well.

[tonybeach]

70-200 VR.

 

The differences are the greatest between it and the long end of the 18-200. The need for speed is greater at longer focal lengths.

[hans_janssen]

With a D3 coming and in the future maybe reasonable priced FX camera's I should not invest in DX lenses anymore.

[tonybeach]

"...I should not invest in DX lenses anymore."

 

Lenses are tools, not investments. If you use it, buy it. If it's the best tool for the job at hand, that determines its value. Since DX format is not going away, the lenses will still have value for many photographers -- for example, if I was only going to take one body with me and wanted to use telephoto lenses, I would choose a DX format and bring along a DX wide angle lens. Quality DX lenses like the 17-55 improve IQ on lower end DX cameras just as much as they do on pro DX cameras, and even consumers value improved IQ.

[elliot1]

Unless you are shooting in low light and need the faster aperture, you probably don't need either. Wanting is another story.

 

If you need or want a faster aperture, prioritize based on your current shooting needs. I use both almost exclusively for work. For 'fun' stuff, I use the 18-135 or 18-200 unless lighting conditions are poor.

[pcassity]

If the 70-200 is stronger at the 200 end than the 18-200, at what point does (or should) the 17-55 significantly outperform the 18-200?

Certainly I understand that the 2.8 aperture in itself makes it a faster lens.

[ShunCheung]

If all you need is a 200mm lens at f5.6, your 18-200mm is an ok lens. As I have pointed out a few times, f5.6 is kind of the AF limit for Nikon's AF systems. If you shoot a lot indoors and your lens is max f5.6, AF performance may be iffy and you may get a high percentage of slightly out of focus shots. Therefore, even though you might not need to shoot at 200mm f2.8, you may still prefer an f2.8 lens just to get better focusing.

 

If you always shoot outdoors, under strong sunlight, maybe you indeed don't need any f2.8 zoom.

 

Another major advantage of those f2.8 zooms is that they are much better built. Compare that to the 18-135mm with a plastic mount, the different should be obvious if you handle them. The difference between the price tags is also very obvious.

[dan_k6]

I bought the 70-200 first and then the 17-55. They're both spectacular lenses and they complement each other very well. I only bought the 70-200 first because I needed that range first and I already had an 18-200 which worked fine in good light.

 

It all depends on what you are shooting.

[pcassity]

First let me thank all of you for your comments and opinions. It really has helped. What you have made me realize is exactly what I thought in the first place. And that is that I really want both the 17-55 and the 70-200. So let me ask another question. Certainly there is an incredible difference in the speed of these 2 comparted to the 18-200. However, shouldn't(theoretically)the VR on the 18-200 give you the same exposure at 3.5 as the 17-55 and 70-200 do at 2.8? If so, what then becomes the major difference between the 18-200 at 18mm and 3.5 using VR compared to the 17-55 at 17mm and the 18-200 at 200mm using the VR compared to the 70-200? For those you that told me to go back and look at my photos to see what I normally was shooting, that really helped.

[dan_k6]

VR does not stop action. It stops blur. 17mm @ 2.8 is better at stopping action. 18-200 at 200 is 5.6 which is not all that great for low light shooting. 70-200 at 200 is still 2.8 which does wonders in bad light. My pictures in a Church hall with the 18-200 at 200mm usually were all dark, noisy, and pretty much not worth printing. 70-200 at 200mm is 2.8 which allows more light in. VR won't allow more light in to stop action...it helps with handshake.

[pcassity]

Thanks Daniel. I well understand how the VR works and I understand that it won't stop action. However, it will allow you to let more light in when not using a tripod since you can reduce the shutter speed, which in turn reduces the handshake. It is beginning to sound like the main differce between the three lenes is most noticeable when taking action shots.

[tonybeach]

"It is beginning to sound like the main difference between the three lenses is most noticeable when taking action shots."

 

Sorry, but this is wrong. The 70-200 has superb bokeh and is razor sharp throughout its focal range, there are few lenses that can better it.

[anthony_wright]

Anthony, You said that there are few lens that can match the 70-200 performance. I was wondering if you see the 80-200 2.8d performing as well as that. Just curious about the 2 lens and there differences and similarites. and also, would you use the 80-200 in say a theatre hall

Thanks

anthony

[tonybeach]

For Anthony:

 

"I was wondering if you see the 80-200 2.8d performing as well as...[the 70-200?] Just curious about the 2 lens and there differences and similarities."

 

No, the 80-200/2.8 does not perform as well as the 70-200; not the copy that I had anyway -- particularly wider than f/5.6, and the wide open performance is even more pronounced at the longer focal lengths. Bokeh is related to wide open performance, but even at the same apertures it is something that you can see is better on the 70-200.

 

"...would you use the 80-200 in say a theatre hall?"

 

Even factoring in subject motion, VR will help if you don't have a tripod. Since the more expensive lens shoots better wide open, it also has an advantage there. A better lens (if you could afford it and didn't need the extra reach) would be the 85/1.4, it was specifically formulated for applications like theater halls; but on a budget the 80-200/2.8 is the best bargain lens other the 50/1.8 (and that's debatable, I used the former much, much more than the later).

[pcassity]

Anthony, you stated "The 70-200 has superb bokeh and is razor sharp throughout its focal range, there are few lenses that can better it."

I think that is really the difference that I was looking for.

[pcassity]

Thanks to everyone that gave me their thoughts and opinions. I decided on the 70-200 and bought it today. I think I going to be very happy with it. This is one of the first five shots.