Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by Louis Champan, Jul 14, 2005.
Anyone care to comment of this lens as a replacement for the 18-70 kit lens on my D70.
If you can live with the gap created at the longer end, this lens is superior in every way - and I wish I had it
I replaced the 18-70 with that lens. It's fabulous. Not too bad wide open at 2.8, too. You won't miss the 55-70 as you can move with your feet for that range. Just go for it.
The 17-55 and the 70-200 are my two working lenses. With those on my pair of bodies, I'm set for almost anything.
17-55 has no f/stop ring... and the zoom is a little closer to the body...
I had the 17-35 and it was perfect for using the zoom
17-55 is a little awkward in the beginning, the extra 35-55 zoom is what I needed... no to get used to the close zoom ring
Thanks for the input. I find the 18-70 very good for the price, but hoping and expecting the 17-55 to do a bit better in low light conditions and overall just more quality.
the 17-55 is better in low light for sure, the f/2.8 is quite useable. IT is a heavy lens, one that is not as easy as a "Carry-around" as the 18-780, which is quite petite in comparison.
If you want low light I would first add a $99 50/1.8 In my opinion f/2.8 is NOT fast enough for indoor shooting with no support and no flash, for the most part. The extra stop and a bit of a 50/1.8 or 85/1.8 will probably make the differencei n low light.
Not that I discourage buying the 17-55 it is afantastic lens, but Nikon erred when not including VR on this lens, that would have made it a low light uber-lens.
Overall the 17-55 will give you quality across the range and across apertures, the pictures really pop.
Please consider disabling your ad blocker for our website.
We rely on ad revenue to pay for image hosting and to keep the site speedy.
Or subscribe for $5 per year to remove all ads and support our efforts.