| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/28/2008 01:13:57 PM · #1 |
| i have the 18-70dx and was wondering if the 17-55 is that much of a better lens to warrant the £800-$1600 it costs in england. |
|
|
|
01/28/2008 02:03:00 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by tchaik:
i have the 18-70dx and was wondering if the 17-55 is that much of a better lens to warrant the £800-$1600 it costs in england. |
It depends. If you're shooting weddings professionally, then it is probably worth the money. If you're an amateur trying to put a cost effective kit together, there are probably better choices.
The more technical answer is, yes the 17-55 is a truly excellent lens, sharp and sturdy, one of Nikon's classics. It's also big and heavy, and $1000 more than the 18-70. The 18-70 is a very good lens for the price, fairly sharp, lightweight, reasonably fast focusing. But there isn't really anyone who will claim that the 18-70 is in the same class as the 17-55.
If you want something at the 17-55 focal length that's better than the 18-70 but not so expensive, I hear the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 is very good. |
|
|
|
01/28/2008 03:16:18 PM · #3 |
| Depends what you shoot. A good support system, or stobes, or a couple fast primes is probably a better investment for the average user than the extra quality and f/stop (give or take) that the 17-55 would give you. |
|
|
|
01/28/2008 03:23:19 PM · #4 |
I've owned both and do prefer the 17-55 (sold the 18-70). The 17-55 gives you more low light flexibility and is sharper, but it is a lot more expensive. If you shoot a lot of indoor photos the constant aperture is nice to have. I agree that if you're starting out, I'd get a prime or two (the 50 1.8D is still my sharpest lens) and an external flash if you don't have one.
|
|
|
|
01/28/2008 03:30:27 PM · #5 |
I used to think that the 18-70mm was perfect.
Then i bought the 17-55 and now gag a little every time i look at old pictures taken with my old 18-70
IF you can afford it, go for the 17-55! Remember, you're not spending the money, you're investing it!
|
|
|
|
01/29/2008 09:36:07 AM · #6 |
|
|
|
01/29/2008 09:47:16 AM · #7 |
I'll speak up for the Tamron 17-50 2.8. That constant aperture is wonderful. I've gotten very, very good results with it. I'm guessing it's less than the Nikon 17-55, but I haven't checked.
Message edited by author 2008-01-29 14:47:43.
|
|
