Out of the 3 zooms, which of 2 are most useful?

[brian_yeung]

<p>I guess I'm asking if could only purchase 2 out of 3, being wide, normal and tele zooms, which is more useful or important.</p>

<p>I will get the tele zoom for sure but should I spend the rest on a normal (17-55) or a wide (11-16). I'm using Nikon D300s</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>The answer will depend on what you shoot, and under what conditions. Are you shooting social scenes and events, or are you doing landscape, architecture, and interiors? Are you shooting in challenging low light where only a really fast prime is going to save the day anyway, or are you a big strobe user? Need a little more to go on, here.</p>

[Two23]

<p>It really depends on what you shoot. If you were really into ultrawide shots, you would know it. If you like to take photos of people, the 17-55mm would be more useful. All depends on what you photo. Start analyzing your photos from the past. They will tell you what to get. Never buy photo gear that you don't have a clearly identified use for.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Brian, which zoom range is important highly depending on your subject matter. If you yourself are not sure, the chance that those of us who barely know you can give you any good advice is very slim.</p>

<p>It would be helpful if you can show us a portfolio of your typical subjects or at least tell us what you like to shoot. Generally speaking, covering the mid range like 17-55 or 16-85 is a better choice for most people, but you may or may not be one of those.</p>

[gogu]

<p>It greatly depends on what you shoot, your shooting style, etc.<br>

Generally speaking a 17-55 or 16-85 plus a 70-300 or 70-200 would be a nice working combination. I have opted for the 16-85mm and 70-300mm combination and I am happy with it but you could choose differently, it's all matter of personal choice/taste/shooting style as I said.</p>

<p>rgrds</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>An 11-16 is great but amazingly limiting! For the next lens I would get the 17-55.</p>

[brian_yeung]

<p>Sorry I didn't extrapolate my question.</p>

<p>Well I like to shoot a myraid of things, but I like a lot of portraits/candids which is why I am getting the tele zoom, more isolation and ability to shoot further away to catch the candid shots without intrusion. I also like landscape shots such as shooting waterfalls, so that is why I asked if the UWA is more worth than a normal 17-55. I also have a 50mm 1.8 prime though but of course its the inconvinence of swapping lens and the fixed prime length of the 50.</p>

<p>Like for example, if I went to a vacation destination and brought my 70-200 and say UWA vs the 17-55 lens, would I miss out on more things to shoot than having that normal zoom?</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>The 50mm on the D300 is a bit an awkward lens, more a short portrait lens than a normal lens. If you would add a 35mm prime, then maybe you could do without a "standard zoom" in the 18-50 range. But the Tokina 11-16 is really only very wide-angle... so it would still be a "compromise" set I fear.<br>

Given your uses, how important is f/2.8 really? I understand people like the idea of f/2.8 all along, but for a wide-angle outdoors, it's not really all that needed. Landscapes are f/8-f/11, one does not need f/2.8 for that at all. So you could maybe consider some others too: Nikon 10-24 or Tokina 12-24. Still seriously wide-angle, but the 16-24 range makes them more versatile than an 11-16.<br>

Likewise, the 16-85 may be worth considering. Far from f/2.8, but sharp and quite well built, and it has a useful wide-angle end (16 is seriously wider than 18) and overal a very useful range. Still add the 35 f/1.8 for low light, and you have a lighter, more versatile and cheaper set.</p>

[cc_chang2]

<p>If people is a primary target of your photography, 11-16 would not be a good "general purpose" lens. In fact to many, it is a great special effect lens. My vote goes to the 17-55/2.8. This range is very useful for shooting events, and PJ style of pictures. The long end helps with candid at close range and the wide ends helps to take in the ambient, and the f2.8 helps to shoot at low light and provides shallow DOF for subject isolation. In this class, people here prefer either the Nikon or the Tamron. I have the former but the consensus is that they both give outstanding IQ with similar bokeh. The difference is in construction, weather seal for the Nikon, as expected, and the AF. You can use the Nikon in near darkness and it will focus quickly, accurately, and quietly. These qualities make Nikon the choice for the professionals who need to shoot, say wedding in a dimly lighted church without disturbing the process. You do pay a premium for that; however, as people move to FF, you can now find the Nikon used for $800-900, still about twice of that of Tamron. A new Tamron is out with VC, if you need VC to prevent camera shake (not necessary for the heavier Nikon for still but may be very useful for video).</p>

<p>For vacationing, for the long end, I usually just take the 85/1.8 b/c it is a fraction of the weight and size of the 70-200. The 85/1.8 gives you plenty of working distance. If you need anything longer for shooting people, it may bring you close to the paparazzi territory. I am joking of course, but the point is if you change the way you frame, for vacation at least, it seems unnecessary to bring the 70-200 beast with you, together with the 17-55. Save the space and weight to carry some nice books, drinks, binoculars etc. ...</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>If all you have now is the tele zoom then getting the 11-16 leaves too much as a gap, so go for the midrange zoom. If you already have a midrange zoom and are looking to upgrade, I'd go for the 11-16 instead.</p>

<p>There are other choices you could consider. You could get a Nikon 16-85 VR or a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 or a Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 and a Sigma 10-20 or Tokina 12-24. They are all very good lenses and you could get an ultrawide zoom and a midrange zoom for around the price if the Nikon 17-55 f/2.8 alone.</p>

[dan_t3]

<blockquote>

<p>

<p>With what you shoot I would go for the 17-55. Great lens The other reco of the 16-85 is good too, but the lens is slower. I have both of these. I love the 16-85, but indoors for portraits or weddings without flash or low light, it's too slow. The 17-55 is great though. Both very sharp.</p>

</p>

<p>The 16-85 is lighter than the 17-55 so take that into consideration if you need too.</p>

</blockquote>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>reading your posts, i believe you'll be happy with any one of the tamron 17-50mm, sigma 18-50mm, nikon 16-85mm and the 17-55mm to complement your choice of a long zoom. the last two of course will run from expensive to very expensive.</p>

<p>good luck on your choices.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>17-55 or thereabouts is the most useful range on DX. you can make do with a wide and a tele, but only if the UWA goes to 20 or 24mm. for me the gap isn't so much of an issue as my tele is the 50-150, which (obviously) closes the gap between 24mm and 70mm by 20mm.</p>

<p>the next thing is, are you sure you want the 17-55? it's really heavy for walkaround/travel use and (IMO) overpriced by almost 50%. if it were $800 new it would be worth it, but for the same money, you can get an UWA and the tamron 17-50/2.8, which is just as good optically (almost).</p>

<p>as far as UWAs go, unless you're really planning on shooting a LOT at 11mm and 2.8, i would get the tokina 12-24 over the 11-16. for the price ($400 new) it's really a good deal. there are times when 12mm on DX seems a <em>leetle</em> short, sure, but probably more times when i'm gratified to have the 24mm long end, which lessens the need for lens changes. if you can swing it, the nikon 10-24 is even better, but its 2x the cost.</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>The Tokina 11-16 is a very nice lense. It is very limited in range. IMHO it would be great for close indoor shooting because of its speed. I sold mine when I purchased FX. Outside landscape I prefered a 10-20 or 12-24 either brand. Basic people, event or general shooting I would look closely at a 17-5x f2.8 zoom. Big and heavy but versatile. I carry equipment for miles so weight is a large concern for me so I don't use any of these lenses. Study your needs closely and you will figure out which makes the most sense to get.</p>

[brian_yeung]

<p>So I'm hearing that regardless which choice I choose, I would be using the 17-xx more than a 12-xx,11-xx.<br>

It is probably true, I just thought it would be neat to have those very near/middle/far shots with a 11or 12mm focal length I see in pictures, perhaps I can do something similar with the 17-xx or hold off for those until later if the 17-xx can't make those shots.<br>

Yeah the Nikon seems pretty expensive compared to the other options but I like strong build quality, as some said the tamaron isn't build as weather strong but cheaper. I don't think I'll get the 16-85, as for the non 2.8, I like taking indoor lower lighting shots. Right now my normal zoom is 18-105, as good it is in good light, low light it's not great as it's 3.5-5.6. <br>

I do use my SB-600 as much I can though but I find that I'm doing the dragging the shutter technique to bring in the ambient background into the shot, so I would still need the bigger aperture lense.<br>

Maybe get a used 2.8, either Nikon or Tamron, Sigma, for now until later to upgrade to a newer one. I rather have brand new lense if I can.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>So I'm hearing that regardless which choice I choose, I would be using the 17-xx more than a 12-xx,11-xx.<br />It is probably true,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is probably true for most people, but you may or may not be one of "most people." Brian, eventually this will have to be your personal decision.</p>

<p>For example, "most people" have some 50mm lens. Some people have mutliple 50mm lenses. However, in 32 years shooting Nikon, I have never owned a 50mm Nikon lens or have any desire to get one. It is not a focal length I like, for FX or DX. But that is just my personal preference. I still recommend a 50mm (or 35mm for DX) to "most people."</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>by the way, brian, your headline is misleading. you say 'out of wide/mid/tele which is more useful' but you've effectively negated one option by choosing the tele. so that becomes 'out of wide/mid which is more useful.' this changes the advice you'd get to some degree.</p>

<p>an 11-16 and a 70-200 leaves a humongous gap in the middle.</p>

<p>you'd still have a fairly big gap with a 10-20/12-24/10-24 but it would be more manageable.</p>

<p>yes UWAs are 'neat' but they are also somewhat specialty lenses. i really like the UWA for street fairs and scenic stuff, especially in good light when i can stop down to f/8, but for everyday, walkaround and most 'normal' shooting, the mid is my go-to lens. also, if you like build quality and can forgo AF-S, the tokina 16-50/2.8 is built like a tank (same construction as the 12-24 and 11-16).you can get that AND the 11-16 for less than the price of a new 17-55.</p>

<p>for me, i appreciate the lighter weight of the 17-50. you really feel the difference after six or seven hours of documenting cheese tasting and belly dance performers. but as shun said,it's your call ultimately.</p>

[rick_helmke1]

The 17-55/2.8 is a superb lens and along with an 80-200/2.8 (I don't care for the 70-200) covers 80 percent of what I do. Both are bigger, heavier and pricey but they are worth it to me.

 

Rick H.

[carl_becker2]

<p>Brian, it really depends on what you want to do.  Shun as well as others have given you good advice.  Your needs are what matter not mine.  I use the mid range at least half the time.  I also use wide angle and long tele.  Each of my lenses have a purpose and that was the reason I purchased a specific focal length.  Think about what is most important to you focal length wise and then speed wise.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>When I used DX I never felt the need for a lens wider than 17mm; currently I use FX and 24mm is the widest that I use in practice (I have an 18 but it's really quite superfluous). I think having a telezoom and a superwide zoom with no lens in between would not be workable. The 17-55+70-200 make a great team.</p>

[brian_yeung]

<p>Ok I've again been reading on certain things people say and my own experiences..<br>

First I think it was Thom Hogan who said in an email to me and also wrote in his reviews on certain normal zooms (17-xx) etc, and he said that most pro's (I dont know what he meants really, like magazine shooters, wedding?) use only tele+wide zooms and foregoing the normal range because they like to focus on things like depth perspective, exaggerating near and far. <br>

So that made me think, hmm, so is it waste of money to spend $1400 CDN on that 17-55, if it's not as "used" so get a third party for 1/3 of the price. But then people say here, it's very unusable if I just have my tele + a UWA 10-xx, 11-xx, 12-xx lens.<br>

So it is confusing at the least! I never shot with an UWA yet, widest I have is 18mm on DX with a 3.5/f, I don't worry about tele end, I know I can have uses for those, but what about the mid part of the normal zooms? Ok just say I do use the lower end like 17-20 for my "wide" shots, but would I just not get much use from 21-40mm and start using from 50-200?<br>

I don't know, but I know when I use my 50 1.8, it does feel a bit long, indoors I have to stand further to do anything in close spaces unless I want head shots. But also feel I'm missing the longer range of 100-200 for shots I don't want to stand too close.</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>Brian, it doesn't matter what Thom Hogan writes; just take a look at this list of DX zooms Nikon has for the "mid range":</p>

<ul>

<li>16-85mm VR</li>

<li>17-55mm</li>

<li>18-55/f3.5-5.6, 3 versions</li>

<li>18-70</li>

<li>18-105</li>

<li>18-135 (discontinued)</li>

<li>18-200, 2 versions</li>

</ul>

<p>It is not difficult to figure out what most people buy.</p>

<p>Hogam prefers the two extremes for himself, but I don't think it is true that most pro do the same.

When you make an extreme choice like that (for yourself), you have to know what you are doing, and I am sure Hogan does. I am not sure about someone else making such a choice for you, though.</p>

[brian_yeung]

<p>Hmm intersting. Then it maybe wise to invest in the Nikkor 17-55. I'm not saying Tamron/SIgma isn't good but it's a great price for those, but build quality suffers and I don't like the extension of the lens that allow sucking in more dust and stuff.</p>

<p>Probably also can't use those in rainy/dusty desert conditions as well? Too bad the 17-55 can't be had for $900</p>

[cc_chang2]

<blockquote>

<p>Too bad the 17-55 can't be had for $900</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As I indicated in my post, as least in the Houston area, every now and then, I can see someone selling a used Nikon 17-55 for $800 - 900 on c-list. They are all described as "like new." If you want one, just be patient and look around. The 17-55 is indeed weather sealed; however, if your camera is not weather sealed, you still should not shoot in the rain. The 17-55 is outstanding with its AF performance, but then this matters if you plan to use it a lot in dim light.</p>

<p>In reference to the advice you received from Thom, you must know what type of photography he does and see if that is what you want to do. Another good example is Ken Rockwell whose "advice" is frequently quoted. When I look at their web sites, it seems that they are both more interested in landscape and nature. They do not photograph people as often as say a regular mom and dad who try to capture the faces of their children without distortion inside the house (not from hundred of ft away). Many PJ or wedding photographers also need to photograph people as their main interest. For these people the fast/wide 17-55 lens is absolutely necessary. In contrast, for nature, landscape photographers, super wide and super long are far more useful to make a visual/artistic statement and to provide enough reach to cover the subject. It is very unlikely that one would use the 17-55 to photograph a lion or a small bird. For landscape photographers, they also do not need a fast lens. this is why Ken says that it is a waste of money to get the 17-55/2.8 when the 18-70/3.5-4.5 is so cheap. Context matters.</p>

<p> </p>

[brian_yeung]

<p>Makes good sense.. I guess you are spot on, I did read Rockwell's site and he loves wide and landscape more than anything. I don't know if he likes portraits as much. <br>

Well I do probably shoot mostly in lower light, not outside in daytime. So 2.8 is a must, my 3.5-5.6 18-105 can't deal well indoors especially like restaurants where lighting is very dim. Sure outside in daytime the 3.5-5.6 down to f8 should be sharp as the 17-55.</p>

<p>Yes I can get the used ones but I rather new for lense, as they can be better investment than bodies. Yes my body is weather sealed, d300s should be quite good. So if I do get the tamron then I think I might not be able to seal the body good enough at the mount and if it rains a bit. Also again I do not like how these zooms extend out and then sucks in more dirt and it's also not as strong.</p>

<p>I guess I might have to get the Nikkor. In that case I guess I won't be getting the 11-16, over my budget that I want to spend. Unless someone thinks it's better to get the tamron/sigma ones?</p>