17-55 or 2 primes ?

[stephen_tran1]

Hi,

 

This is my first post here. I have entered DSLR world for about a year and enjoy it. I'm having D80 and 16-85 VR

which I like very much! 16-85 is an excellent lens, very sharp, like it!.

However, I'm now looking for one or 2 faster lenses which I can use in low light conditions or to capture my 2

years old playful son, and some portraits with nice skin colors too.

With my budget around $800, should I get:

 

1/ 17-55 ( used) ?

OR

2/ 35mm f2 and 85mm f1.8?( can get brand new)?

 

Which ones can give me better IQ regarding sharpness and colors...( I don't mind changing lenses and will keep my

16-85 as walking around/ travel lens)

 

Thanks a lot for any of your ideas!

[ShunCheung]

For this situation, instead of buying fast lenses, I would suggest first adding a good flash and use that to stop motion. An SB-600 or SB-800 may be all you need.

[stephen_tran1]

Thanks Shun!

 

I'm sorry that I forgot to mention I already have SB-600. That's very nice flash. I bought it with my 16-85. Thanks again.

[sprouty]

Shun's idea has value and should definitely be considered first. But I'll offer my direct exeperience: when I had a D200 I had the 17-55 and the 30mm f1.4 Sigma. Both are terrific lenses with respect to image quality, but in terms of use I never liked the 17-55. It was too big and too slow. Now that I have a D700 I have a 50/f1.4 and a 35/2.0. And have absolutley no desire to shoot with a bigger zoom.

 

Here is a sample of a pre-wedding party and wedding I shot for a friend two weeks ago with those two lenses. Note, per Shun's recommendation, that all the shots were done with some flash.

 

http://www.flickr.com/gp/37135917@N00/681x5h

[sprouty]

BTW, If you decide to view the images, you might want to click on the "slideshow" link above and slightly right of the thumbnails.

[stephen_tran1]

Thanks Sp...

 

Your pictures are awesome! The primes are pretty good! Thanks

[sprouty]

Thanks. As for the lenses, I'm pretty happy with them, but will consider the new Nikon 50mm when it comes out in Dec if there is a substantial improvement wide open (and if it doesn't sound like a little meat-grinder when focusing...).

[tim_knight]

Stephen,

Have you looked at the Tamron 17-50/2.8? Not as heavy as the Nikon 17-55. Checked out KEH and you can get one for $419 and the 85/1.8 for $390. It would put you a little over your budget but you would have excellent fast glass.

[Two23]

I used to use fast primes, but have dumped them. They are very inflexible for fast breaking action. Also, I didn't find their image quality to be up to Nikon's most modern zooms. I now use the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 and Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 lenses for what you are doing, on my D80. The Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 is an excellent buy and a favorite of those just getting into wedding photography. It's fairly small and light. It's very hard to beat the flexibility of a high quality fast zoom.

 

 

Kent in SD

[bruce_margolis]

Stephen, there is nothing wrong about adding a fast prime or a flash but IMO, neither will help you as much as a zoom. All 2-yr-olds are very active and it only gets worse as he gets older. In other words, he will be running toward you/away from you all the time. And soon he really will be running.

 

I think the 17-55 or third-party equivalent will be a big help to you. The flash is certainly fine for inside shots but it may not recycle as fast as you may want another shot, even more so if you are using the camera's 3 fps.

[stephen_tran1]

Thank you for all your ideas.

I hear a lot of good things about the Tamron but I don't sure if I will get a good copy or not.I know quality

control is an issue of third party lenses. I also prefer the non- AF motor but now they are not in stock any more.

 

How about selling my 16-85 then get 17-55 + 85 1.8? That means I will have one zoom and one prime, both are fast.

Is it certain the 17-55 can give me better IQ than 16-85 in almost situations, I mean sharper, nicer colors? I

know I still use SB-600 in low light regardless which lens. While I read many good reviews about 85 1.8, which is

a very nice portrait lens.

Very likely I will get 85 1.8 for portraits and shallow DOF.

 

So now, keep 16-85+ 35mm f2 or 17-55?

 

Thanks a lot

[elliot1]

"...I mean sharper, nicer colors"

 

No, IQ will be pretty much identical. You will just be able to shoot in a little bit lower light at a little bit

lower ISO and have faster and perhaps more accurate focusing (in lower lighting conditions).

 

"portraits with nice skin color"

 

It is all in the lighting.

 

Chances are your current lens with your flash bounced will produce superior results to room lighting with a

faster lens (results obviously vary with lighting conditions).

 

The 17-55mm and your flash (bounced) will probably work best for you.<div></div>

[sprouty]

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests

 

This will give you more objective information, which of course is not always the best way to choose a lens...

[nolan_ross]

I have a 50mm f1.8 that I use on my D200. I use it for stage shots from the seat when my kids (5th row usually) are up there. Also used it for my dauther's senior pictures as it makes a nice portrait lens. Very sharp even at f1.8. Tomorrow I am going to a quilt fair in San Jose with my wife and I will use it to take quilt pictures without flash. They cost about $110.00 new. 50mm x 1.5 = 75mm (conversion). If you bought that and liked it then you could go back for a 28mm f2.8 lens which has a conversion to 42mm..I have not bought that one but plan to buy one soon. I have a number of zooms that are nice but the prime lens is a favorite of mine because they are inexpensive (some of them), lightweight, very fast and give you very high quality performance. The 35mm and the 85mm would be fantastic choices also.

[Two23]

I doubt you will see much image quality difference between the Nikon 17-55mm and the Nikon 16-85mm VR. (I have the first lens but not the second.) My reasoning is this. You probably aren't using a tripod. Most of the time you aren't going to see a difference in lens sharpness unless you are using a tripod, at least in my own experience. Second, the 16-85mm has VR and that really works. Where the 17-55mm f2.8 really shines is in low light. In fact, I use the lens for my night photography shots. Second is it has a very quick AFS focus. The 16-85mm is also AFS, but I have doubts it's of the same heavy duty design. I have all very fast pro level lenses now--Tokina 11-16mm f2.8, Nikon 17-55mm f2.8, Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VR, TC-17E. Believe it or not, I've been toying with the idea of getting a 16-85mm VR to use on family outings. It's smaller, lighter, good zoom range, and has VR. With the exception of low light levels, I have doubts I could get better image quality from my 17-55mm than I could with the 16-85mm VR. A good family outing set up is fast, light, flexible.

 

 

Kent in SD

[stephen_tran1]

Thank you very much! You all have very convinced ideas....

Portable ,light weight, and fast lenses are getting more interesting for me. 16-85 plus one or two primes in bag is likely a great idea.

Thanks

[larrybc]

I've got the 17-55, 24/2.8, 50/1.4, and 18-200VR, plus a few other lenses. Since getting the 17-55, it has become my primary lens for photographing my kids (2 and 5) when around the house or when photographing people (portraits, etc) or events. When going out for the day, I generally use my 18-200. The primes get used when I feel like going light or want the shallow DOF of the 50. Compared to my other "normal" zooms (Sigma 18-50/2.8, Nikkor 18-70, 18-200VR), the 17-55 has better contrast, bokeh, and is very fast at focusing. I'd keep the 16-85 for outings and travelling. I'm using my 18-200 for that role.

 

larsbc

[jbm]

I own a 16-85 as an everyday lens, a 50/1.8, 24/2.8 and a whole bunch of other stuff I share with my Dad. For the two year old, I'd use the zoom. I do have to say, though, that simply bouncing a little flash is really the way to fly. This will allow you to stop down the 16-85 which is a truly superb lens for the price...stopped down it is as sharp as anything I can think of...seriously! Look at this shot of a couple of leaves with flower petals on them I took with a stopped down 16-85...

 

Have fun whatever you buy.

 

Cheers, Jay<div></div>

[RaymondC]

What I found is that one may need a pro zoom and primes.

If you are doing theatre works or indoor sports you may need the zoom and just up the ISO to ridiculous levels. The prime just may not work because it cannot zoom so the composition is v limited.

 

If you are doing things that is v v dark like operas and stuff then I guess you need the prime and just live with what inconvenience.

 

For your question which is better, I guess like others its pretty insignificant. Esp in low light other than light intake from the larger aperture, low light isn't the best light to shoot in and hence. If you talk about portraiture I would assume that I can get great color and sharpness on a great day using shutter speeds of 1,000 or faster and notice that easier between lenses.

 

My only concern with the 85mm is that it might be a bit too long, the 85mm I think is a great lens if you have the time to stand back and photograph the person, it is not a lens that just pick up and shoot the odd shot that comes along. The 50mm may be better focal length. But less on the bokeh.

[Two23]

Keep in mind there were TWO reasons I ditched my so-called primes. The first was I was missing fast breaking shots because of lens changes. The second reason was that image quality from the "primes" (I actually think "dinosaurs" when these are mentioned) just didn't impress me. Keep in mind that with the exception of the Sigma 30mm & 50mm f1.4, and latest Nikon 50mm f1.4, these were all designed a decade or two ago. They do not have the newer coatings. They do not have any ED elements. They do have a fair amount to large amount of purple fringing (CA.) I got tired of having to deal with that in PS. So, I now have all fast f2.8 zooms. I am tempted by special purpose lenses such as the 24mm f2.8 tilt/shift, 105mm VR, and will likley buy a 300mm f4 VR if Nikon makes one. Other than that, I just don't see a need for these kinds of lenses, even the latest such as Nikon 50mm f1.4 ED. With the ability to push ISO higher and higher, I find I have the need for a lens faster than f2.8 to be about zero, and I am mainly into night photography!

 

 

Kent in SD

[sprouty]

<I>"I just don't see a need for these kinds of lenses, even the latest such as Nikon 50mm f1.4 ED."</I>

<P>

A lot of this boils down to simple preference, because undeniably, the primes are lighter, smaller, faster,

(generally) sharper edge to edge, and can provide shallower depth of field.

[ShunCheung]

Stephen is trying to take some family pictures of his 2-year-old son. Most likely, nobody outside of his family will be

all that interested in those pictures (at least not before his son becomes the president or some major movie star 3, 4

decades from now :-) ). I simply don't see why the D80 and 16-85mm with an SB-600 cannot already get the job

done. I don't think we are talking about some Ansel Adams type landscape masterpiece that requires edge-to-edge

sharpness.

 

I would not use those so called "primes" for this purpose. You are going to miss lots of shots when you are busy

changing lenses.

[sprouty]

Come on Shun, of course you're right, but we're just having a little poke at each other, it's all in good fun.

<P>

<I>"I would not use those so called "primes" for this purpose. You are going to miss lots of shots when you are busy changing lenses."</I>

<P>

And in that same spirit...I could ask you how anyone ever got kid shots before auto-focus was invented? Because an equally viable option is a 28mm lens set zone focused, camera set to release priority, then crop to suit. Instant response and zero missed pictures.

[ShunCheung]

Ok, since this discussion has drifted into a pretty useless level, I am locking the thread.