One Last time....Zooms

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by mood, Jun 30, 2007.

  1. mood

    mood

    Jun 27, 2007
    suburbia, ny
    Thought I had my mind made up...get the beast, now unsure again
    the 4 zooms I am considering and what I percieve to be their merits:

    - 28-70 2.8- great focus speed.best for portrait/ PJ
    - 17-35 2.8- best stopped down for landscapes.very sharp f8-11
    - 17-55 2.8- again fast focus.sharp. maybe too short on long end ?
    - 18-70 3.5-4.5 was a great (inexpensive) lens with nice coverage.but slow

    Considering I have 12-24, 50 1.4 and 18-200 VR
    what fits best . I tend more landscape/ city shots/ travel type shooting
    seems like it should be easy, but it never is, hence this forum

    sorry if i seem redundant, I had a similar thread the other day...
     
  2. mood

    mood

    Jun 27, 2007
    suburbia, ny
    thanks Edward
    I love the beast in every way, other than its wide end
    I know my 24 is close to 28, but I never think any lens is best at its extreme end....
    wish it was 17-70 like the Sigma...
     
  3. weiran

    weiran

    966
    Jan 2, 2007
    Nottingham, UK
    17-55 is a very good range for DX crop cameras, you'll probably find the 28-70 quite soft wide open compared to the 17-55 and a very awkward range (43mm to 105mm). My choice is the inexpensive Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, same size and weight of the 18-70DX but 17-55 beating image quality at a very good price. Bargain of the moment.
     
  4. Firelarz

    Firelarz

    Feb 26, 2006
    Chandler, AZ
    Frank, I have the 17-35 and 28-70, and had the 17-55. I agree the 28-70 is the choice for you. I usually keep that one on one of my bodies and a 70-200 on the other depending on what I am shooting. As long as weight is not an issue, that is what I would get.

    Larz
     
  5. Doug

    Doug

    Jan 17, 2006
    East TN
    That settles it, every prime made from 10.5 to 600mm. No zooms required.
     
  6. ckdamascus

    ckdamascus

    928
    May 14, 2005
    New Jersey
    Answer:
    17-55/2.8.

    --------------------

    28-70 -- Nothing about it makes it a better PJ than the others. 70 is ok for a portrait, but you didn't say it was a priority. Try a 85/1.8 for that or better.

    17-35 -- has better distortion control at the wide end and only after stopped down from what I hear. It's more ideal for full-frame, so I wouldn't bother.

    17-55/2.8 -- great lens, replaces most primes but DX. You can still do full body portraits at 28-30mm. I think clever positioning can still make this a decent head/shoulder portrait lens.

    18-70/3.5-4.5 -- great lens for the money, but... if you own the 18-200, I fail to see why you would bother?
     
  7. I agree with Edward on all points but the final cut/choice. I shoot mostly landscapes and find that I am in the 17-50 range most of the time. The 17-50 Tamron is on my camera most of the time. Since you are limiting your choice to Nikons, I recommend the 17-55. I think it will reduce your lens changes.
     
  8. Donzo98

    Donzo98

    Nov 10, 2005
    Merrick, NY
    That is exactly my set up. :biggrin::biggrin: I have the D200/ 28-70 and the D2XS/70-200 VR.

    Don
     
  9. I do pretty well as a psychologist, even if i don't have my degree - so let's analyze your thought process:

    Yo have the 18-200, so that takes the 18-70 out of the equation as most people agree the 18-70 range is similar on both lenses.

    The 17-35 fits the bill for landscapes - but you mention 'travel' and 'city' shooting which could encompass a variety of needs - the range of this lens 'might' be somewhat limited when a little more reach is needed

    The 28-70 2.8 - as you mentioned great for portrait/PJ - however you didn't mention this in the types of shooting you do. The word 'landscape' was number one in your list (even if it wasn't done on purpose, it was the first word you thought of) and as the 28-70 lacks the wide end - I think it is safe to take this one out of the equation.

    The 17-55 2.8 - ok i think this fits the bill - landscapes - check, city shots - check, travel - check. The lens covers the wide-to-normal-to-medium range and should fit your needs quite well.

    Just my 2 cents, but no charge for the info :)

    Daniel
     
  10. mood

    mood

    Jun 27, 2007
    suburbia, ny
    thanks Daniel, and everyone
    more and more it seems 17-55 is the way to go
    perhaps I do need some couch time.....

    lol
     
  11. plim

    plim Guest

    if you have the 12-24, i'd consider getting the 28-70. i have the 17-55 and love the lens itself, but haven't really used the wide end that much, and would rather the reach. i'm wondering if i should've gotten the 28-70 instead. you can easily make up the difference between 24 and 28mm with your feet.
     
  12. Pete

    Pete

    Jun 10, 2006
    Denver, CO
    I have the 17-55 and it is a fantastic lens and very sharp but lately I have been using the 18-70 because it is nice and small and the extra 20mm makes it very useful as a walk around lens. Have you thought about adding some nice primes to your kit. Steve is right, you have everything covered in the zooms and you can get some great prime lenses for what you are willing to spend on the 28-70.
    Pete
     
  13. mood

    mood

    Jun 27, 2007
    suburbia, ny
    I have the following
    12-24 Tokina
    50 1.4 af-d
    18-200 VR

    selling my 80-200 af-d, because of size/ weight...and will probably get 70-300 VR after that sale
    what I was trying to get is a 2.8 zoom, to carry when I want one lens, but don't need the 18-200 or in lower light situations
    the 18-70 is the perfect FL, just wish it was 2.8
     
  14. I have the 17-55mm. The big advantage of that lens is that it handles low light so well, it is quite sharp at f2.8 already. seems to me that you could consider the 17-55 and add the 85 f1.4 or th f1.8 if the 1.4 is to pricey. The 1.8 is a very good lens, within a smidegon of the 1.4 at a great price. That way you would have a travel kit and a pro kit...
     
  15. cwilt

    cwilt

    Apr 24, 2005
    Denver, CO
    You don't need anything else. No zoom can touch the 50/1.4. Wide end convered with the 12-24, and 18-200 for walk around.

    If its a "want", then I would consider testing both the 17-55 and 28-70 wide open. My 28-70 has a fair amount of CA when wide open.
     
  16. ^^^^ what he said ^^^^
     
  17. I think that the 17-55 would be the way to go IF you didn't have the 12-24. But since you do have the W/A lens, I'd definitely suggest the 28-70. I've got that combo and it works well for me - and I shoot everything.
     
  18. weiran

    weiran

    966
    Jan 2, 2007
    Nottingham, UK
Loading...