17-55 2.8 or 12-24 4, help me decide!

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by Perreault, May 8, 2007.

  1. Perreault


    Nov 24, 2006
    I know there is a lot of collective wisdom on the cafe.

    The Revenu-Quebec (or the IRS for the US) has been very generous this year. I need help deciding what my next lens will be. I am not a pro photographer but I enjoy photography as a serious hobby. I try to do all kind of photos (portraits and landscape mostly). You can have a look at yvesperr.smugmug.com to get an idea.

    I presently own a 70-200 2.8 VR (fantastic) and a 18-200 VR (very practical but slow). I went today at my photo store and played with a 17-55 2.8 and a 12-24 f4.

    What sould I do, sell the 18-200 and get the 17-55 or add the 12-24???

    Please give me your toughts on this dilemma...

  2. cadman


    Dec 4, 2006
    Johns Creek, GA
    That's what I did. Sold the 18-200 got the 17-55 and the 70-200.

    Sooo glad I did. The 17-55 will make you just as happy at that range as the 70-200 does in it's range.

    Fast is good!
  3. I'd go with this suggestion as its what I did too. No more lens creep either.
  4. jaleel


    Apr 3, 2007
    Toronto, Canada
    i would have kept my 18-200VR if i could have.. when i travel out of the country i like to go light and that is the best travelling lens barnone

    i sold it and went with the 17-55 because i shoot a lot in that range.. my 70-200 is for sports
  5. Arif

    Arif Guest

    I have both and initially used the 18-200 when I travelled but now, the 17-55 hardly leaves my camera. The optics are great and I like having the extra stop. Still like the 18-200 for the convenience, but as I become more fussy with my picture quality and try to get in closer to people to capture the feeling, I prefer the 17-55. It just feels great to hold and the sharpness is phenomenal. I personally think it is a great wedding lens.

    Good luck,
  6. Ray C.

    Ray C.

    Nov 7, 2005
    I love my 17-55 for PJ work, but its not quite wide enough for some landscapes, and too short for portraits. So perhaps you may consider a Sigma 10-20mm (or Tokina 12-24), Nikon 35-70mm and Nikon 85mm f/1.8 for about the same price as a 17-55...
  7. Zachs


    Feb 25, 2006
    There is also the Tamron 17-50 + Sigma 10-20 (would make more sense than the 12-24 considering the 17mm of the tammy) for the price of the Nikon...used.
  8. GKR1


    Apr 19, 2007
    San Diego
    I would go for the 12-24. Add a 50mm 1.4 and you have very nice setup until you can pick up a 17-55.
  9. Perreault


    Nov 24, 2006
    Thanks all of you for your inputs! I got the 17-55 2.8 and will see what I can do with it...

  10. canuckr


    Apr 9, 2007
    CBD Detroit
    Good choice, congrats..I have both, the 17-55 and the 12-24.. The 17-55 is used about 95% of the time..
  11. DITTO

  12. Double Ditto!!
  13. Snipps


    Oct 7, 2006
  14. Zee71


    Apr 1, 2007
    Queens, NY
    17-55 is the way to go! I'm going to be adding that to my lens outfit in the future. Ditto and more ditto to the previous ditto's!
  15. StefanosL.


    Sep 5, 2006
    I currently own a 70-200, 17-55 & the Sigma 10-20. I'm happy.