Decisions, decisions...70-200 mm vr or 17-55 f?2.8?

[Bohdan]

Recently had the pleasure of using the 17-55 f/2.8 for about a month and really really wanted to purchase it. But then I thought, with the current kit lens that I have is it really worth the extra dollars - and should I instead opt for the 70-200 vr - a decided improvement over my current 70-300 f 3.5 G for longer zoom? At this point I could probably convince the wife that one lens addition to my meager collection is a necessity - two would be an impossible sell.

So.....decisions....decisions....


Any words of advice?


Bohdan

 

[twig]

70-200 vr

 

[eng45ine]

Bohdan,

The lens choice is purely determined by the type of photography that you enjoy most. Last year at this time, I was shooting predominantly sports action with an F100 and my two lenses were a 24-120mm VR and an 80-400mm VR. I came across a tremendous deal on a pristine Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 lens in September which has become my workhorse for shooting sports. While these are all quality pieces, I desired to switch to digital in December when the price for the D2H dropped to below $2K.
Once I took possession of the D2H, I realized that the 24-120mm and the 80-400mm were not the best lenses for sports action because f/2.8 lenses were much faster especially in low light situations. I sold the 80-400mm to a friend and replaced it with a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR in February. I recently purchased a 28-70mm f/2.8 and am in the process of consumating a deal with another member of the Cafe to sell my 24-120mm VR to her.
So...that all being said, each of the lenses that you are considering are fast glass ( f/2.8 ) but one is wide and the other is a mid-telephoto. Which lens would you benefit most from...wide or mid-telephoto, it all depends on what you enjoy shooting most (sports, wildlife, landscapes, portraits?). The current 70-300mm kit lens has better reach than the 70-200mm but it isn't fast for low light situations. You didn't list what you are using for wider shooting, but 17-55mm is a very nice piece.
If lowlight situations aren't a concern and you would benefit by owning a 17mm opening...sounds like a great opportunity. Whatever the case, buy something and have a great time shooting. Can't wait to see some images from either lens choice!!!

I hope I helped with my novel!!! :?

 

[greyflash]

I have both lenses and love them dearly. I must admit that I use the 17-55mm more but that is a result of what I shoot. You are the only one that can effectively answer that question. I submit that you would not go wrong with either lens.

 

[Bohdan]

Thanks Frank and Gordon for your replies....As far as what I like to shoot...I guess I would like to do a little bit of everything...but I prefer to do landscapes and perhaps some portraits. Certainly the day to day snapshots of family and friends.

I do have the Sigma 12-24 that I am happy with. The kit lens 18-70 that at F/8 is apparently as sharp as the 17-55 and I have not been unhappy with the kit lens- so I suppose I am leaning towards the 70- 200 vr to get a quality zoom low light capable lens.

Thanks

Bohdan

 

[jfrancis]

Given that you have the wide end covered fairly well, I would go for the 70-200VR. It is a superb lens (not that the 17-55 isn't also, of course) and it will be a quantum leap from the 70-300G.

 

[Tosh]

Go for the 70-200!

The 17-55 is a very nice lens, but IMHO it would not be drastically different from what's possible with your 18-70 and 50 1.8. On the other hand, I think that youwould notice a certain wow factor if you stepped up from your 70-300. I find the 70-200 to be a very special lens.

Glenn

 

[Jonathan]

Tough choice

I have both and if someone said I had to part with one, I'm not sure what I would do. As others have said, you really need to decide what you need the most for coverage because they are both incredible. I have three favorite lenses(in no order):

17-55 2.8
70-200VR
85mm 1.4(on it's way), but I've used one.

On the other hand, life is short, buy both :twisted: , I've seen the 17-55 used for $800 on another forum recently. I'll check and see where it was.

 

[avalanche161]

I had a similar choice to make, went with the 70-200 and have been very happy with that decision. Either way you get a great lens!
_____________________
Best of luck, Alan

 

[mf44]

I used to be in that boat. I had the 18-70 and added a 70-200 VR to that. The kit lens focuses nice and fast with AFS. The 70-300 is screw drive. The focus speed is one thing you'll notice as an immediate positive with the 70-200.

The kit lens is an amazing piece of glass, especially for its size and price. I really don't like the 70-300 all that much.

Ultimately I sold my 18-70, though, also, as it was replaced with the 17-55. It's important to note that I didn't feel the need to replace the 18-70 until I was shooting basketball real wide indoors and needed the 2.8.

Also keep in mind that I shoot a lot of sports. The 70-200 is great for that. Heck it's great for a lot of things. It's big though. For day to day snaps I don't know if I'd lug it around. Why don't you rent or borrow a 70-200 for a few days and see if its a big plus or more of a boon with the added weight and size?

Really a tough decision. I don't know if I helped. Just remember, as soon as you buy one, start saving for the other. They compliment each other real well.

 

[Bohdan]

thanks for all your good advice..Just about made up my mind to get the 70-200 ...but I will try it out for a couple of weeks before hand.



thanks again

bohdan