17-55 vs two primes - First Digital SLR

[eigtball]

I am debating whether or not to get two primes (most likely 35/2 and 50/1.4) or

the 17-55/2.8. I have been going back and forth for the last 3 weeks trying to

decide between those two choices.

 

I have looked at a number of sample shots from each of the lenses. I have

spoken to a number of experts and Nikon users. I have heard both stories. I

see the advantage to having just that one zoom vs two primes, but the lens of

1399.95 Canadian prices. Which is a huge amount. I am moving from Film to

digital and I have a $4200 budget. I can come under budget with an extra

battery and grip which I honestly don't really need.

 

Should I be thinking about getting the two fast primes and a mid-range zoom

(16-85) or just stick with the 17-55.

 

Thanks,

[michael_hahn]

Get the zoom. Very good lens. Pretty Fast. Unless you are buying the D3 (full frame), the 17 will be equal to about 35 on the low end. Whereas your 35, would be equal to about a 52 ... not really even a wide angle lens!!!!!!

 

Best of luck,

 

michael.

[s._mangrove]

Sean,

I have all threee lenses you mention, and unless you are getting a non-DX body I would get the 17-55.

 

The quality, range, speed, and build are outstanding. While I really like the primes, you will not be satisfied only having the 35/2 on the wide-end with a DX body.

[rob_piontek]

Depends on what you want to do with them. The best use for the primes is obviously low light without a flash. How about this option, though, get the 17-55 and the 50mm 1.8? The 50mm 1.8 is basically free compared to the 17-55! You might also consider the 3rd party options for the 17-55 2.8, which are probably around the same cost of the 16-85.

[ronald_moravec1]

First the finder will not be brighter.

 

Second the 35 has distortion like the zooms and the 50 a little.

 

It really comes down to size and weight if you carry only one and if you need the extra speed, ie will you actually use 2.0 and 1.4.

 

I have 24/28/35/50/60 primes and 18/70 zoom. At 4.0 to 5.6 I can not see a difference in the pics. A favorite two lens set up for me is 28/60.

 

Older manual focus primes have a cooler color than the modern auto focus ones. This is also correctable with photoshop.

[tonybeach]

I like your thinking regarding two fast primes and a slower wide angle zoom with VR. I think you may need an extra battery and two memory cards (preferably UDMA). Don't forget to budget some for software and computer upgrades if you don't already have them.

[fredrik_steffen]

Depends on how much you think you'll use the zoom. I personally realized that I don't zoom at all at the wide end and therefore settled with a 28mm/1.8 which works perfectly for me. So it depends on what you want. I personally would get a wide prime for nature/architecture/general-walk-around lens., like 28mm or so and something longer for portraits, like a 85mm. That is of course just the way I like it, so it all come down to personal preference.

[fredrik_steffen]

Should also mention that I sincerely hate flashes and never use them, so I need my fast primes ;)

[Ed_Ingold]

The 17-55/2.8 zoom lens serves in place of several "prime" lenses - the 18, 20, 24, 28, 35 and 50. With few exceptions, this zoom lens is as sharp (or sharper), has less distortion and less chromatic aberation than the prime lenses it replaces.

 

Zoom lenses have come a long way since the Nikkor 43-86, and nowhere more than in the constant f/2.8 models. If I wish to indulge in nostalgia I use an Hasselblad and, of course, prime lenses.

[eigtball]

I have the software and the computer (computer geek). The zoom does give me the wide angle perspective. The 2.8 speed is fast. The down side is the price.

 

If I choose two primes or three if I toss the grip (which I probably will) What choices do you think?

 

24/2.8

28/2.8

35/2

50/1.8

50/1.4

85/1.8

[eigtball]

Sorry I should have said I was pairing this with a D300.

[mawz]

I'd get the zoom over 2 primes. I'd consider a 3 prime kit instead of the zoom (20, 35, 50) but your cost savings go away there.

[billy_vanderhoes]

The problem with nikon is they have no fast prime in the wide range so there really isn't any advantage (none faster than 2.8) to go prime except for less weight/bulk. The 35mm and 50mm combo are not good efov due to the crop factor.

 

I would get the 17-55mm but if you like primes then maybe a 20mm / 50mm is worthwhile combo. You can add the 18-70mm for another $200 also. They will end up costing much less than a mint 17-55mm.

[lilly_w]

Sean, it would be enormously helpful for you to tell all what / where you shoot. These well-intentioned answers will be more germane if targeted to specific needs.

[eigtball]

I was going to just say Lilly. I am mainly going to be doing street photography and some nature while on hikes this summer. Id say 75% street and 25% nature.

[jc5066]

Sean,

 

Unless you're getting the D3, get the 17-55. Its a wonderful lens. 35mm on a crop is about 50mm on a film/full frame camera. aka standard lens.

 

You won't be disappointed with the quality of the 17-55.

[joe_a2]

Sean....You could wet your toes with an 18-55mm plastic fantastic to get a feel for what focal lengths YOU will gravitate toward. The market is full of them for $50 or so, and it really is a decent optic. Then you can try the same focal range as the wonderful 17-55 to see if you would utilize the range, and sell the 18-55mm if you decide on the uber 17-55.

 

As far as the primes go, I'd suggest the 35mm f/2D right out of the gate. Regardless of what lenses you end up with, that lens fits into almost any lineup.

[eigtball]

I am a shallow telephoto user I am currently in film shooting 28-105 and am happy there. I am not at the 105 alot, more near the 50ish range. So I do know I'd like to be around the range of the 17-55mm for a zoom.

 

My problem is the D300 is a big beast to learn. I guess I am looking for confirmation that a 35mm/2 prime will be adequate for me. I shoot mostly 50mm 1.8 on my Film body and have done so for almost 10 years of shooting. The only zoom I have experience with is my Canon 28-105 , yes I am moving from Canon to Nikon :).

 

I think the cost for the performance is just too much on the 17-55. 1400 is a huge wad of cash.

[joe_a2]

Sean....Based on what you just said, I can just about guarantee you will LOVE the 35mm f/2D on the D300. It is a great walkabout lens for a "50mm" shooter.

 

You might also consider a used 17-55mm. The market is a bit flooded in our post-D3 world, and you can find one easily for $900. There's no doubt it's a fine lens, but the fact that you have some reservations means you should hold off and revisit the idea later.

[hiro]

The 17-55 is ridiculously good. If you need utmost confidence and don't want to worry about your results, then it is "the" pick.

 

If you want pretty damn good, get the Tamron 17-50. Besides being lighter and optically very good, you could get the 35mm, 50mm, and an Sb-600 for the same price as the 17-55.

[eigtball]

Exactly Joe. Plus my wife will be happier ;)

 

I think I will like the 35/2 and be happy with it for the next while. Should I also pick up another faster prime, maybe a 50/1.4 or 50/1.8 or even an 85/1.8 as I have heard about their optical nirvana?

[eigtball]

Hiro, my path is pretty much D300, SB-800, 8GB UDMA card and either 35/2 or the 17-55/2.8 but the price of the 17-55 is very high, but is it worth the $1400 (its $1100 US) which is easier to swallow.

[billy_vanderhoes]

I would pick up a backup say a d70 for $400 or so especially if you are going the 2 or 3

lenses route.

[billy_vanderhoes]

By the same token, 2 x 4 gig is better than one 8 gig card...never know it will crap out on

you.

[eric_arnold]

here's what photozone recently said about the 17-55 in their 16-85 review: "the high end (although not all that great) AF-S 17-55mm f/2.8G ED" ... interetingly, they rate the 16-85 as better optically. in the 17-55 review, they say: "It simply lacks the greatness suggested by its price tag."

 

that's a pretty transparent indication that the 17-55 is overpriced, if not overrated.

 

as the owner of a tamron 17-50 (which works great on a d300), i have to say it's pretty great despite the inexpensive price. as always, YMMV, but don't say you weren't warned.