17-55mm 2.8 or 18-55mm 3.5-5.6

[jacobreiskin]

<p>Hello, I currently own the 18-55 Nikon, but i am looking at upgrading to possibly the 17-55 Nikon. I wanted to know if people think the expensive price and weight are worth it for better build quality, 2.8... I shoot mostly outdoors and portrait photography with a D300s. Thanks!</p>

[louis_rosenthal]

<p>i just bought a 24-70 2.8 today because i'm looking to go FX sometime in the next few months. I have around 25 shoots planned between now and july.</p>

<p>I know of at least 3 pros that work with the 17-55 2.8, and i'd definitely get a 50mm 1.4 or 35mm 1.8, sigma has a few fast primes worth looking at - fast primes are great for portrait photography in general.</p>

<p>IN ANY CASE: 18-55 nikon is garbage by comparison!</p>

<p>I've been using the 16-85, which is really sharp and all that, but the aperture just wouldn't throw backgrounds out of focus enough for my satisfaction....</p>

<p>it would be the "cheaper" option if you don't have much cash laying around.</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>The key words are 'worth it'. The Nikon 17-55 is an excellent lens, but for about half the price, the other f/2.8 choices, Tamron 17-50 VC, Tokina 16-50 and Sigma 18-50 are extremely good lenses. The Tamron has vibration control ($650 US), the Tokina has great build quality ($600 US), the Sigma has fast auto-focus (HSM) and is the least expensive ($450 US). I tend to be frugal about my photography purchases, so I would probably choose the Tamron so I could have the vibration control, but since I have an excellent Tokina 12-24 f/4 (built like a tank), I have not put the Tokina 16-50 out of the picture yet. The Sigma zoom control moves in the opposite direction as all my other zoom lenses, so I will probably not choose that. The Nikon is the largest and heaviest of all of them.</p>

<p>The general consensus is if you have the money, buy the Nikon, if you need to stay in a budget, one of the others is a viable choice.</p>

[chauncey_huffman]

<p>I currently use the 17-55 and I've had a Sigma 24-70 2.8 (for comparison). The Nikon absolutely blows it out of the water in every aspect. It is MUCH sharper at every stop, quieter and faster to focus, and it's built like a tank. I haven't used the 18-55, but I've used kit lenses before and none of them have compared to the 17-55. It's a great lens, and if you can afford it, I would buy it. Since my experience with that Sigma, I am very leary of third party lenses, and I will always tend to buck up the extra $ for the Nikon lens. Just my thoughts, good luck with your decision!</p>

[pictureted]

<p>I like the 16-85. I'm willing to sacrifice the constant aperture for the wider zoom range. No, I can't throw backgrounds out of focus, but I tend to stop down to f6-f16 for DOF so I don't really care. If I do want shallow DOF, it's usually with longer lenses. For portraits I prefer f2 or faster, so the zooms aren't an option in my mind. I'd consider the Voigtlander 58/1.4 for portraits.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>I happily use two of Sigma's primes (the 30/1.4 and the 50/1.4) as well as their lovely 10-20 ultrawide, and couldn't be happier about their optical and build qualities. But when it comes to something in this focal length, Nikon's 17-55 is certainly the one I'd want to be knocking around with in the field (I'm not very polite to my lenses). Is it more than twice as well put together, and twice as good, optically? Probably not. But like all camera gear, small improvements in quality generally come at noticeably higher cost.<br /><br />Personally, I couldn't be happier with Nikon's take on the wide-to-standard DX zoom. I don't really miss the VR, either, though I wouldn't be without it on the 70-200.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>You might also consider the 18-35mm. I know it's not the range you may be looking for, but it also has full frame capability. I owned a 18-55mm and was very disappointed. I sold it and bought the 18-35mm. It is far superior. I use it as my standard lens (in so much as it's the lens I try to keep on my main camera).</p>

[ted_raper1]

<p>Whether the 17-55 is worth the money or not is totally up to you, but it makes no sense to me to buy a D300s and then use a less than stellar lens on it. The 18-55 is okay as kit lenses go, but it's not one on Nikon's best efforts. I've owned a couple of the lenses mentioned above - the Nikon 16-85 and 18-35 - and while neither is as expensive as the 17-55 they are both much better choices than the 18-55.</p>

[roman_thorn1]

<p>Keep your kit len and buy an 85 1.8.</p>

[rombon]

<p>For me 17-55 f2.8 is a prefect general purpose lens on Nikon D300. It is expensive but it's worth the price if you need this particular range and if you are critical about picture quality. Beware: the use of the supplied hood is obligatory.<br>

My opinion is that 85 f1.8 can not replace 17-55. When I go hiking to the mounatins and I want to carry relative light photo pack I take two lens 17-55 f2.8 and 85 f1.8 with me.<br>

Regards, Marko</p>