17-55 or 18-55 for what I shoot

[dan_k6]

I'm an owner of the 17-55 2.8. I'm actually thinking of selling the lens and

dropping down to the 18-55 for a few reasons.

 

1. My 70-200 2.8 produces some of my most eye popping work. At least that is

what I'm told.

 

2. I can't remember the last time I shot the 17-55 wide open. I'm always at F4

or smaller.

 

3. DOF/bokeh is not an issue with this focal length. Wide open the bokeh is

nothing spectacular.

 

4. I need the money. So holding onto a $1200 lens when you're not a professional

doesn't seem to be worth it.

 

5. The 17-55 is a beast of a lens. It looks cool but it's not something you

want to walk around with on your neck.

 

 

Would dropping down to the 18-55 be a bad idea? I'm not saying that magically

the 18-55 should be better but if it's pretty close then I'd like to sell the 17-55.

 

 

What are your thoughts.

[dan_k6]

I shoot mostly event work at the Church. I'm not a pro. I volunteer to do this.

 

I also want to use it for vacation snap shots, candid portraits, lots of stuff that the non-pro guys do.

 

I bought it on impulse 1 year ago. I always had a feeling that the 18-55 would do 99% of what this lens would do.

[Matt Laur]

I'd consider the new <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FNikon-16-85mm-3-5-5-6G-Telephoto-Cameras%2Fdp%2FB0013A1XDE%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Delectronics%26qid%3D1209320430%26sr%3D8-1&tag=uplandlife-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325" target="_blank"><b>16-85 VR</b></a>, since it allows you to get 2mm wider (which really counts on a DX sensor), is unquestionably a better lens, optically, than the older 18-55, and has the huge benefit of VR, which will help out a lot at f/4 in lower light interior spaces, like the ones you shoot.

[ian_murren]

Other lenses to consider, used?

Nikon replaced the 18-70mm with the 16-85, you can get the 18-70 for <$200 now,

there are tons on ebay.

 

Another option is, Tokina used to make a 19-35mm f3.5-4.5 which i own. I got mine for

$67 off ebay, more than thrilled with it.

 

It sounds like you dont want to replace a $1200 lens with a $650 lens. Heck the tokina

you could buy, try out before you sold your 17-55.

[Peter_in_PA]

Consider the 16-85 or 18-70. But I don't believe the 18-70 has been replaced. The 16-85 is

twice the money, so I'm pretty sure both will continue in the line.

[younes]

If plastic doesn't bother you, try the Tamron 17-50 2.8 (reviewed at Photozone.de and bythom.com). The 18-55 is ok if you don't plan to print larger than 12x8". It also has a rotating front, so the use of filters is complicated. I am actually trying to get rid of mine but am looking for the 17-55 or a 17-35.

[walterh]

If you shoot in good light near f8 you can fix most of the downgrade in "sharpness" by post processing. As you know there is more to this icredible 17-55mm lens than just "sharpness" you will loose some detail information. Your call.

 

I just recently got the D3 and the D200 with the 17-55 is replaced by the D3 with the 17-35 and 35-70mm lenses. Still I have a hard time parting from the D200 and this 17-55mm lens - its just so good :-)

[elliot1]

I suggest you buy the 18-55mm and do some side-by-side comparison shots so you can judge for yourself the quality of the images the 18-55mm will give you. I did and found that my copy of the 18-55mm was every bit as good sharpness wise as my 17-55mm (and in some instances, better) - In fact, I found no 'downgrade' or 'compromise' in sharpness, color or contrast with the 18-55mm.

 

Keep in mind the 17-55mm will focus faster and more accurately in low light. If you are shooting in good light or with flash, you won't miss the 17-55mm.

[joe_a2]

Daniel....Here's another vote for a used 18-70mm instead of the 18-55. The 18-55 is fine for what it is, but the build quality on the 18-70 is just plain better.

[ShunCheung]

Even though you don't actually capture images at f2.8, I wonder whether you need f2.8 for auto focus. Since you mentioned church events, for indoors, an f2.8 vs. an f4 lens can make a difference as far as AF speed and accuracy goes. A max f5.6 lens can potentially AF hunt like crazy under dim light. A body with superior AF capability helps and so is an AF-assist light if you can use one.

 

A new 17-55mm/f2.8 AF-S DX has dropped to $1200 new. You can probably sell one used for $1000 or so. If you turn around and buy a $600+ lens, your net gain in terms of $ is going to be somewhat limited.

 

If possible, I would borrow the target lens you would like to switch to, try it out to make sure that you indeed won't miss f2.8 under your shooting conditions before selling your current 17-55.

[Two23]

I often change my photo gear around like that to match my needs. If you have a $1,200 lens that you don't feel you are getting your money's worth from, then yes you should seriously consider replacing it with something to free up the cash to be better used elsewhere. I find that I just don't use that 20-70mm slot very much at all in my own photos. I tend to shoot mostly with something wider than 20mm. What you might consider is the new Nikon 18-55mm VR. The VR really works and should be good indoors. The 16-85mm VR might work for you too, but it's twice as much money for that extra 25mm.

 

 

Kent in SD

[carl_becker2]

I have the 18-70mm Nikkor. I used it today for some pictures at our dog park. It was cloudy today at 2pm so I had to bump up the ISO to 800 and still had a slow shutter speed that could not stop action. I really should have used my fast prime! Slow zooms even with VR just do not replace a fast prime YMMV. If you will never use the 17-55 then sell it but I have learned my lesson about buying and selling. Don't buy unless you really need it then don't sell because you will use it.

[dan_k6]

Thanks for the responses. I like the 17-55. It's a great lens but I don't like $1200 lying around when I am not using it to make money. I'm sure there will be a compromise bringing the 18-55 indoors with AF. But outside on a sunny day, I don't think I would see a difference. From what I understand the 18-55 focuses closer too.

[eric_arnold]

i'm sure other 17-55 owners would disagree with you about bokeh not being spectacular, but if you need the money that bad, then bokeh might be a luxury. but do you really want a $99 lens with a slow variable aperture and a (gasp) plastic lens mount?

 

you could sell the 17-55 for about $1k and get the tamron 17-50 for around $400, which smokes both the 18-70 and 18-55 and still gives you that 2.8 when and if you need it.

 

i doubt you'll see much of a drop-off between the 17-50 and the 17-55 in terms of IQ, except maybe at 17mm (but not at 18mm). at 50mm, though, the tamron might even be sharper.

[Two23]

The Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 does sound like it might be a good compromise for you.

 

 

Kent in SD

[studor13]

I seriously doubt that ANY lens will "smoke" the 18-70DX between f5.6 and f11 at the wide end.

 

From what I've seen and read the 18-55mm II has more resolution and for $100 I am even thinking of getting one.<div></div>

[jose_angel]

"I shoot mostly event work at the Church" If you shot <i>mostly</i> indoors, I`d forget to use other than a F2.8 lens.<p>

 

Don`t know how good a 18-55 could be, but I`m afraid you will miss the 17-55 construction quality and optics <i>soon</i>.<p>

 

If your 17-55/2.8 is really burning you, I would take the lastest 16-85 for wider polivalence. The focus aid beam of the SB-800 could help you at the church.<p>

 

Another choice could be to buy an AFD 24/2.8 to be used when you don`t want to carry with the 17-55/2.8. It has been my choice, it works to me.

[ShunCheung]

I am afraid that down-grading is a risky move. I cannot predict how Daniel will react to the change, but potentially you can miss the quality and f2.8. The worst thing is that you sell it, miss it and need to buy one back; you'll end up spending even more money. And you don't really have $1200 sitting in the 17-55 any more; $1000 or so is more like it.

 

That was why I suggested getting the new lens you want first. Leave the 17-55 home and try the new, downgraded lens by itself for a few days. In case you don't like the move, you can return/resell the new lens. That is less costly.

 

When I was in college (years ago), there was a hifi stereo store that let you exchange speakers, but you need to pay list price to "upgrade." A student started with speakers A, paid to upgrade to B, and then to C, D .... After like 5, 6 paris, he went back to A, but he paid a lot of money for the "upgrades." Apparently that guy was from a rich family so that money was not a concern, but that case was a joke that circled around the students.

[carl_becker2]

If there is plenty of light then the slower zooms are fine. Where the slower zooms, even my 18-70mm fail is when I need f1.4, f2 or f2.8. A flash can help but its extra weight and time for recycle. Good fast glass is very handy and as Shun says make sure you will NEVER need it before you sell it. Been there and done that - lesson learned.

[steven_p]

While reading this thread, I saw the lowly 18-55 sell on ebay for $24.00. I paid 3X that for mine and feel it's worth every penny. It's not my primary lens, as I prefer wider, and also have a few primes.

[wing8]

There is a new VR version of the 18-55 too.

[eric_arnold]

"I seriously doubt that ANY lens will "smoke" the 18-70DX between f5.6 and f11 at the wide end."

 

doubt away, but note that i didn't qualify my comments with such criteria as "between 5.6 and 11 at the wide end," so i can only partially agree with you there. generally speaking, most lenses reach a 'sharpness sweet spot' stopped down approx. two stops from wide open. for the 18-70 that's f/8 at 70mm. for the 17-50 that's f/5.6 at 50mm. there's no question that the tamron is way sharper wide open, while the nikkor catches up somewhat between f/8/-f/11, which is OK for landscapes, not so great for PJ or street/doc, and definitely limiting for walkaround use, especially in low light. sorry, but there's no substitute for 2.8 (or faster).

 

i will tell you that in my experience, both the tamron 17-50 and 28-75 smoke the 18-70 at f/5.6, and that obviously, one doesn't have the luxury of shooting at f/4 or higher on the long end with the nikon, unlike the tamrons.

 

but i don't really think you can compare a constant aperture lens to a variable aperture lens, since the wider aperture basically means you reach max. sharpness faster. btw, the tamron "twins" compare favorably with the 50/1.8 at f/2.8, perhaps a bit less contrasty, but very close in sharpness.

[dan_k6]

I just want to add that when I'm shooting indoors, I'm shooting with an SB800 powered by a Turbo SC. Most of the time the lens is at F4 or smaller because when I am shooting a congregation, I like to get the rows of people in focus.

 

Does the use of a power pack have any affect on my decision?