steve_tenggala

Ok, this might be sound like a stupid question, so hold your breath.

I was reading some posting about using a teleconverter when I

suddenly was reminded of nikon VR technology. I am not familiar with

the details of how TC and VR works, but is it possible to create

somekind of extension tube that you place between your camera and

lens (something like the TC 1.4 or 2) but doesn't come with

magnification. Instead, it's equipped with the nikon vr technology

that any lens you use virtually becomes a vr lens?

Again, I'm not so familiar with how the TC or VR works, but if it's

workable, this would appeal to a lot of people and nikon should

seriously consider this. What do you guys think?

Sorry for the confusion, I just thought it's a good time for me to upgrade my kit lens. I know it totally overlaps my kit lens, but I just use this range a lot and want to up the ante to get the best lens of this range (I know it won't come cheap, that's why I ask this forum). As far as the long end, I was thinking to get the 80-200 af-s or even the 70-200 vr, and 12-24 (maybe from tokina) for the super wide when it becomes a necessity.

But, Tito, maybe you're right. I may just get the 85mm first for now and maybe the 50mm since it's so cheap. It should cover me 18-85 with fast aperture on the long end. I think that fast aperture will be a better use on the long end of that range.

Eric and Shun,

Thanks for the input. I never tried these lens myself and based my opinion on a lot of reviews I read on the net. These reviews lead me to believe that, despite the good quality of 17-55mm and the versatility of the focal length, it's still not as good as that legendary 17-35mm version, thus a little overpriced as it costs almost as much as the 17-55mm. My budget is a little tight here, so I thought I can make use of used 20-35mm as the price seems right and it's just the older version of the 17-35mm with 3mm less on the wide-end.

So, if I get it right, I would be better to just save the money until I get the 17-55mm, right?

Hi all, I am a D50 w/kit owner and just decidedly to upgrade my kit

lens to a fast and better-optic lens for wedding and low-light use.

It seems like the ideal lens would be that mortgage-yourself 17-

35mm /2.8 nikkor but it's just too darn expensive. I tried to find

other alternatives but all other get some mixed review like:

- 18-35mm : a rather so-so lens for the price, slow zoom, I'd rather

keep using my kit lens than upgrade.

- 17-55mm : nice but that not as good quality as the 17-35mm despite

priced almost on par with with the 17-35mm, problems with flares and

ghosting, a little out of my budget.

- older 20-35mm : sharp, fast af, but said to be prone to flares,

min focus distance 0.5m.

Due to my budget constraint, I feel like going with used 20-35mm

lens. What would you do if you are in my position? Is there anything

else I need to know?

Last thing, I really like my kit lens 18-55mm focal length. Will I

miss that 35-55mm range, let say in shooting wedding?

Thanks.