1. Welcome to NikonCafe.com—a friendly Nikon camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

The "Beast" and Flower

Discussion in 'Lens Lust' started by nykonian, Jul 11, 2007.

  1. nykonian

    nykonian

    570
    May 4, 2007
    New York
    I was going to sell this lens after I obtained a 17-55/2.8, but when I looked at the pictures that I took with this lens. It's really hard to say "good-bye".

    [​IMG]
     
  2. sypher

    sypher

    May 24, 2006
    Cougar Country
    Brian,
    I don't know why you would want such a horrible lens...I mean look how blurry the background is...It would be a burden for me, but I could take that horrible lens off your hands since you've got a good lens in the 17-55!! :) :) 
     
  3. Taylor

    Taylor

    May 21, 2007
    Toronto, ON
    Keep it!! I just got the 28-70 and my 17-55 is definitely staying!
     
  4. mood

    mood

    Jun 27, 2007
    So Fla
    sell it
    I'll buy it
     

  5. :biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:

    Keep both!! I came to my senses (again) and decided that I wanted to keep the Beast (second copy) and get the 17-55. Sorry Brian!! :tongue:
     
  6. nykonian

    nykonian

    570
    May 4, 2007
    New York
    Brian, I love "horrible" lens. Send me your 200-400mm :) 
     
  7. nykonian

    nykonian

    570
    May 4, 2007
    New York
    It's been busy at work so I didn't get a chance to shoot with my 17-55/2.8. I'll compare it to the "Beast" this weekend, and if they are similar in quality, the "Beast" will be gone. :) 
     
  8. rondd5

    rondd5

    43
    Jun 12, 2007
    San Francisco, CA
    Make space for another Yankee fan with both of these lenses. My experience is the reverse of yours, I had the 17-55 first and recently purchased the 28-70, so far I believe the 17-55 performs better wide open. This observation is NOT cast in cement.
     
  9. rubendparra

    rubendparra Guest

    Brian ,

    you can keep the 28-70 for flowers and sell your 105 VR :D 
     
  10. Nuteshack

    Nuteshack Guest

    well u could always sell the 28-70 and pick up a 35-70 (???)
    ,,,,i used the macro feature @f4 for this shot

    717841150_21375c60bd_o.png
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
     
  11. Commodorefirst

    Commodorefirst Admin/Moderator Administrator

    May 1, 2005
    Missouri
    Nah....

    Just buy a 200-400VR it works on flowers too! :eek: :biggrin:

    [​IMG]

    Seriously, if you have any doubts, keep the lens and don't sell it. I still regret selling a few of them I sold to buy other lenses!

    Wade
     
  12. sypher

    sypher

    May 24, 2006
    Cougar Country
    I wouldn't want to burden you with my 200-400...it's heavy, it's hard to find a bag to carry your stuff in...I could go on why you wouldn't want this lens.:biggrin:
    Seriously it is a sweet lens...If you have the opportunity I would pick one up.
    I think my next purchase will be the "beast." Hopefully it will be sooner rather than later:biggrin:
     
  13. nykonian

    nykonian

    570
    May 4, 2007
    New York
    I just sold the "Beast". I know I am going to miss it! Hope I won't sell my 17-55 for another "Beast" in a month.
     
  14. Ok, just my experience, I got a good copy of the Beast on ebay in 2005, used it enjoyed it. For some insane reason, I decided to sell it to get a 17-55, used it enjoyed it, but missed the Beast. Last month, sold the 17-55 and was fortunate to find a brand new Beast (it's been on backorder for about 3 months now all over). Now I am happy. This is just me.
     
  15. nykonian

    nykonian

    570
    May 4, 2007
    New York
    I've already missed it. Now I have to carry 17-55 + 85/1.4 for events. I remember I used to carry just the "Beast".
     
  16. Nuteshack

    Nuteshack Guest

    no it's not just u, imho. i played with one fora few days and can honestly say it's the finest zoom i've ever shot with, period:wink:
     
  17. Include me in the group that has had a difficult time in the past deciding on the 17-55dx or the 28-70 afs.
    I sold a 17-55dx to help fund a 28-70 afs but after a few months missed the 17-55 so much that I purchased another. Having also grown to appreaciate the 28-70 afs I now can't bear to part with either.
     
  18. It is a hard decision! I had the 28-70 and recently added the 17-55. Funny, the 28-70 still stays on the D200 80% of the time. I just can't, a probably won't, part anytime soon. I guess it's a good dilema to have! LOL
     
  19. nykonian

    nykonian

    570
    May 4, 2007
    New York
    I believe, in general, 17-55 has the edge in term of usefulness at this moment until Mr. Nikon produces a FF, then we won't have the conversation which is better :) 
     
  20. A welcome headache to have ...

    I am on the same boat as you were awhile ago. I recently purchased a new 17-55/2.8 and intended to replace the 28-70/2.8 with it because I needed the wider angle. I think I'd keep the 28-70/2.8 because (1) I know I'll miss this lens and (2) I can't get a good selling price from the current market. Perhaps people are holding off to buy this lens because of the rumor of a new "24-70" in the near future. :confused: 
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.