Should I buy the Nikon 12-24 or Nikon 17-55???

[matt_brew]

I'm a hobbyist and I don't do photography to earn money. (but I'n hoping someday

it will be once I'm good at it.

 

My question right now is should I get the Nikon 12-24 or the 17-55?

 

Just to give you an idea of what my style is:

I enjoy shooting birthday parties (mostly indoors), weddings, family and friend

gatherings. Just mainly for personal use.

 

However, this coming June, we're going to Paris. I've never been there and I'm

clueless to which lense I should be using.

 

So which of these two would make more sense to buy in the long run???

 

Thanks!

Matt

[ronald_moravec1]

Depends on your personel style, but for most the 17/55 would be a better lens.

 

The 12mm setting will come close to allowing you to see four walls of a room if you stand in a corner, actually you need 10mm. In practice this is not generally required. When you get that wide, subjects tend to get very small in the frame.

[raymond_ocampo]

What body do you have? FF or DX? 17-55mm would be a good accessory for all-around

mid-range shooting. But then...

 

You're statement "which of these two would make more sense to buy in the long run"

would sway me to invest in FF so that I can dump my DX body in the future and still keep

my collection of lenses.

 

But if you want a cheap all-in-one alternative for now, have you considered the 18-200.

For personal use, it's light to bring around and the distortion can generally be corrected in

DxO. Just a thought.

[matt_brew]

Hey you guys...

 

I have the Nikon D300. I am really new to the DSLR world and I do have the 18-200 VR.

 

Honestly, I don't know anything about this thing called FF or DX.

 

I just want to know which one would make more sense to have! Please help me because I really don't know which one to buy. Although I'm new, it has been fun taking photos and I'm enjoying it a lot. But I just need all your guidance and I'm sure I can learn from your experiences!

[raymond_ocampo]

Sorry...I got confused on the Nikon 12-24 f/4.0 DX lens versus the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 FX

lens.

 

With that being the case I would personally prefer the 17-55 f/2.8 then if those are the

two choices and I had one lens to bring.

 

But then again, if I were to "invest" in a DX lens at present, I would just buy the 18-200

DX and save up for a FF lens in the future. I don't think it's good to invest in "PRO" DX

lenses now at those prices which is close to PRO FX lenses unless I had a bunch of DX

cameras and I was making money from it...or if I just had money to spend.

[matt_brew]

So can is the D300 an "FF or FX" camera and are the FF lenses compatible with the D300?

 

Are they also selling FF lenses now?

[matt_brew]

Sorry for the typo.

 

So are the FF/FX lenses compatible with the D300?

 

Also, I'd like to go back to my main questions.

 

As stated, I enjoy shooting parties, family gatherings, and just candid shots or group shots, "especially my 16-month old son". Actually, that's the whole purpose why I got into buying a DSLR. But now, it has become an obsession.

 

Anyways, going back to my question, which of these two lense would make more sense to own for the mentioned purpose above. But I do travel every now and then when funds permit! That's my dilemma, I just couldn't decide which one would be more useful.

[shuo_zhao]

The D300 is a DX format DSLR, it has a "16mm by 24mm" image sensor, the sensor is about half the size of a FX full frame DSLR (24mm by 36mm).

 

FX lenses are just regular lenses, some new, others left from the film days. DX lenses are rather special, they are capable of only projecting a smaller image circle that's only big enough for a DX camera.

 

FX and DX lenses will work on a DX camera, but DX lenses will by definition ONLY work on a DX camera.

 

 

The 12-24 DX is not very fast for use under poor lighting, its coverage is not very versatile neither. But it can come handy if you want to take wide landscape (cityscape in Paris) and architectural shots.

 

The 17-55 is much more useful for general shooting. It's especially useful because of its f/2.8 speed. Nevertheless, you already got the 18-200, so this may not be the best investment you can make right now.

 

Try to experiment more with the D300 (your current set-up), you will most likely figure out what you want and need that way. Enjoy your D300, it's a wonderful piece of equipment.

[raymond_ocampo]

NIkon FX = Nikon's terminology for Full Frame sensor the size close if not equal to the old

35mm negative film (24x36mm). Nikon DX = less than full frame at 24x16mm.

 

The D300 is a DX, but is also fully compatible with full frame or FX lenses. In fact, if you

have the budget to buy FX lenses for a DX body then you are basically avoiding the

limitations of FX lenses like vignetting and distortion at the edges...or rather the "sweet

spot" of the lens.

 

Since you have the 18-200 VR already, I wouldn't buy another overlapping DX lens.

 

My suggestion is to go to a camera store and check out the lenses you are looking at

because these PRO lenses are bulky and heavy. You're paying money for quality glass and

build. It's hard to describe the feel, size and weight versus the lens you have now.

 

As for full-frame or FX lenses, they've been in existence since 35mm negative. You're

D300 can take those old full-frame lenses. However, FX is the new designation of Nikon

for these full=frame lenses specifically built for digital SLR bodies. They've been releasing

FX lenses since last year. And that's where I've been slowly putting my money in. I've

personally purchased the 105 Micro-Nikkor and the 24-70 f/2.8 lens. I'm saving up for

the 14-24mm f/2.8 and patiently waiting for an update to the 70-200mm f/2.8 lens.

 

For everyday shooting, 18-200mm DX as well as the old-school, yet ever-popular 50mm

f/1.4.

[raymond_ocampo]

Shuo Zhao has explained it best. I wouldn't go rushing to buy another lens especially at your

stage right now. Enjoy the camera and enjoy the 18-200 VR lens. Really.

 

Then when you realize your limitations and expectations in your photos will you be able to

decide what you need next and especially WHY you need it.

[matt_brew]

So let's eliminate these two lenses (12-24 and 17-55). What would you recommend? I think the 24-70 is just a little toooooo expensive for my budget.

[phototransformations]

The important question is, what are you unable to shoot now with your 18-200VR? When you can answer that question, then it makes sense to look at what additional lenses you want to buy. Before you can answer that question, nobody can really help you decide. Ask yourself: Do I need a faster lens for low-light situations? Do I need wider coverage? Longer reach? Better image quality? Then we can help.

[billy_vanderhoes]

If you have the 18-200mm already then the 12-24mm make more sense. The 24-70 and 17-55mm would be redundant.

[matt_brew]

David - I'm having difficulty using the 18-200 for indoor/poor lighting situations. It really is a great camera when we go outdoors like going to a an amusement park.

 

David...you just made a great point and your questions helped me a lot.

I guess what I'm looking for is a lens that is capable of wider coverage such as for group shots (friends and families) but at the same time it's also good for low-light situations YET still good for architectures/buildings. So in other words, it's almost like the 18-200 which handles pretty much everything but not in low-light. Maybe like a combo - wide angle/low-light kind of lens. I hope I'm making sense.

 

Longer reach, I'm not really into "Zooms" yet.

 

 

Here's a list of my lenses that I have:

80-200 F2.8 Push and Pull (I got it from my aunt)

28-105 Macro lens Nikkor

18-200 VR

50 mm 1.8

[jeroen dommisse]

Get the Tokina 12-24. It's just as good and will save you money for the trip. Europe is

expensive enough these days.

[hans_janssen]

Get the Sigma 10-20, you will love the 2mm less when you are in the Notre Dame.<div></div>

[matt_brew]

Jeroen... that's what I've heard. But I can't seem to find a used one.

 

There's a nikon 12-24, used one, for $700. Now here's another question.

 

Is it worth it? arghhhh

[chris_vincent2]

If you have the 18-200 there is absolutely no point in buying the 17-55.

 

The 12-24 is a fabulous lens and would be the perfect addition to your kit.

[hans_janssen]

Crhis wrote: "If you have the 18-200 there is absolutely no point in buying the 17-55."

Did you heard of quality?

[ron_hiner2]

I have the the 18-200, the 12-24 and the 17-55.

 

I take the 18-200 when I want to travel with minimum weight and don't want to be swapping lenses.

 

I rarely use the 12-24. Only when I know I'm shooting landscapes.

 

The 17-55 is on my camera probably 95% of the time. And probably 80% or more of my shots are at 2.8. The quality is outstanding.

 

If I only could own two lenses, they would be 17-55 and 70-200.

 

If I could only own one lens, it would be the 18-200.

[bernie moore]

Matt, you seem determined to throw some $ at a new lens, befor you even understand what your needs are. Well, I do that too:)I have two suggestions based on what you said. You want better low light shots. Who could argue agaist the $100 1.8 50mm Nikon. I suspect mny have it just becuse it's the gretes bargain around. Next I would concur with the Sigma 10-20. There is just so much ink praising that one, and it will extend your range, and it's not that expensive. It is the next lens that I don't need going into the bag. I jyst got a 17-35 and the WA blows me away. Just imagine what the 10-20 is going to do.

[jared_chapin]

Matt I own the 17-55 lens & its Awsome. What ISO are you shooting at in low light. You

have there one of the best cameras on the market for low light. If you aren't already try

shooting between 1200 & 3200 ISO. Also if you want to just stay with what you have why

don't you think about getting an Nikon SB 800 flash for like 300 $. Every one is giving you

good advice. Those lenses are really meant for different things. Unless I'm in a huge

building of interest like the Church pic shown above i never shoot my 12-24 indoors. It's

the 17-55 all the way" the weight be dammed" I have the 12-24....17-55....70-

200VR....50 1.8mm & the 105 Macro & I plan on getting the 300 2.8 VR later. That way I

have good glass for every shooting situation that I want to shoot, but also don't look for

equipment to take better pics. Go to a book store & get a book on Low Light Photography.

Or search the Web . Another thought is to rent both lenses & see for yourself which one

you like better. There is a big weight & size difference between the 12-24 & the 17-55. I

have some friends that love my 17-55, but will never get it because of the weight. Here is

an Web site rental that has both those lenses for rent by the week. So can really try them

out. & hell dude Use that 50 1.8 for low light man it's Awsome

 

http://www.lensrentals.com/

 

Hope this also helps....Jared

[matt_brew]

Jared...you are the man and to the rest.... Thank you!

 

You are damn right! What I think I may need is a flash and not a new lens!

 

Thanks for that website too!!!!

 

I'll be renting the 12-24 Nikon for a week for $46. Man you can't beat that!!!!

[chris_vincent2]

Yes Hans, I did heard of quality.

 

I have both lenses and prefer the 17-55 most of the time.

 

The question was what should Matt buy next for what he wants to do? and a lens which covers part of the same focal length would be a pretty dumb answer.

 

I haven't tried the Sigma or Tokina as I prefer to always buy Nikon, but that is my choice. Both the other lenses are very highly regarded.

 

To be honest Matt, I'm not sure you need another lens for your Paris trip.

 

I' have been fortunate to vist Paris many times and the whole essense of the city is sponteneity and the ability to act quickly when you see something. The 18-200 will serve you very well.

 

ps. if you have time take the metro to visit 'le puce' literally the flea markets. You will not be disappointed.

 

http://www.parisperfect.com/paris-flea-markets/text/paris-flea-markets.html

[johncrist]

Matt,

I have both lenses & like the 12-24 better but I use it for landscapes mostly. If I were using

it for what you say I would go with the 17-55 for sure. 12-24 too wide for alot of people

shots & the 17-55 is wide enough for most situations but goes out to a usable "normal"

range.